Upload File

soil health case studies: quantifying economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...case study...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the
36
Emily Bruner, PhD – Midwest Science Director, AFT FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO NOVEMBER 20 TH , 2019 Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, Water Quality, & Climate Outcomes

Upload: others

Post on 28-Jun-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Emily Bruner PhD ndash Midwest Science Director AFT

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGONOVEMBER 20TH 2019

Soil Health Case Studies Quantifying Economic Water Quality amp Climate Outcomes

Outline

bull Why quantify soil health outcomes

bull Project Overviewbull Teambull Goals bull Methods

bull Project Results

Presenter
Presentation Notes
SH Photo from Dee Ann Littlefield1313First off introduce yourself (given a lot of presentations but first time ever to a room full of economistshellip disclaimer early on I am trained as a soil scientist but have been invited due to my involvement with a national Conservation Innovation Grant examining the economic environmental benefits of soil health practice implementation on farms across the country So Irsquoll start by teasing you with the finished product jump into an overview of why the project is needed and the overarching goals spend a little time introducing the team and all the work that went on behind the scenes to make these case studies happen then wrap up with summarizing the results for three of the four case studies that have been published so far (as these three are the most relevant to the Midwest Region)13Then I will ask a few questions of the audience myself and open it up to questions from the group 1313

Why quantify soil health outcomes Several examples of anecdotal amp scientific

evidence supporting the environmental amp soil health benefits of conservation practices

Less information available quantifying the on-farm economic benefits associated with improving soil health

The agricultural community (including retailers bankers landlords farmers and others) continuously request information that considers the ldquobottom linerdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
This proposed project incorporates all four factors as core elements to our innovative approach which combines use of quantification tools to generate and disseminate case studies that showcase quantified outcomes with an effort to improve relationships between landowners and farmers and a focus on providing effective technical and financial assistance to aid SHMS adoption1313Define soil health for this audience 13the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants animals and humans - NRCS definition 1313

Why quantify soil health outcomes

From NRCS ldquoWith soil health management producers can increase profits and reduce costs and risk all while conserving our nations resources for the benefit of all hellipthe extent of these economic benefits has not been consistently quantified ndash a major constraint to soil health management adoption identified as a priority by NRCS partners and customersrdquo

Other economic case studies

NACD amp Datu (2017)4 farmers 16-page each partial budget analysis

EDF (2018)2 farmers total enterprisebudgets

NRCS NY (2017)2 farmers Kemmeren amp Magos 2-pages each PBA

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Use this slide to talk about the CIG project itself awarded in 2018 1313httpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd14703941313

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer ndash corn cover crop

Meet the Team

Michelle PerezProject Leader AFT Water Initiative Director

Florence SwartzProject Economist Retired NRCS NY Economist

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 2: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Outline

bull Why quantify soil health outcomes

bull Project Overviewbull Teambull Goals bull Methods

bull Project Results

Presenter
Presentation Notes
SH Photo from Dee Ann Littlefield1313First off introduce yourself (given a lot of presentations but first time ever to a room full of economistshellip disclaimer early on I am trained as a soil scientist but have been invited due to my involvement with a national Conservation Innovation Grant examining the economic environmental benefits of soil health practice implementation on farms across the country So Irsquoll start by teasing you with the finished product jump into an overview of why the project is needed and the overarching goals spend a little time introducing the team and all the work that went on behind the scenes to make these case studies happen then wrap up with summarizing the results for three of the four case studies that have been published so far (as these three are the most relevant to the Midwest Region)13Then I will ask a few questions of the audience myself and open it up to questions from the group 1313

Why quantify soil health outcomes Several examples of anecdotal amp scientific

evidence supporting the environmental amp soil health benefits of conservation practices

Less information available quantifying the on-farm economic benefits associated with improving soil health

The agricultural community (including retailers bankers landlords farmers and others) continuously request information that considers the ldquobottom linerdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
This proposed project incorporates all four factors as core elements to our innovative approach which combines use of quantification tools to generate and disseminate case studies that showcase quantified outcomes with an effort to improve relationships between landowners and farmers and a focus on providing effective technical and financial assistance to aid SHMS adoption1313Define soil health for this audience 13the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants animals and humans - NRCS definition 1313

Why quantify soil health outcomes

From NRCS ldquoWith soil health management producers can increase profits and reduce costs and risk all while conserving our nations resources for the benefit of all hellipthe extent of these economic benefits has not been consistently quantified ndash a major constraint to soil health management adoption identified as a priority by NRCS partners and customersrdquo

Other economic case studies

NACD amp Datu (2017)4 farmers 16-page each partial budget analysis

EDF (2018)2 farmers total enterprisebudgets

NRCS NY (2017)2 farmers Kemmeren amp Magos 2-pages each PBA

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Use this slide to talk about the CIG project itself awarded in 2018 1313httpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd14703941313

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer ndash corn cover crop

Meet the Team

Michelle PerezProject Leader AFT Water Initiative Director

Florence SwartzProject Economist Retired NRCS NY Economist

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 3: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Why quantify soil health outcomes Several examples of anecdotal amp scientific

evidence supporting the environmental amp soil health benefits of conservation practices

Less information available quantifying the on-farm economic benefits associated with improving soil health

The agricultural community (including retailers bankers landlords farmers and others) continuously request information that considers the ldquobottom linerdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
This proposed project incorporates all four factors as core elements to our innovative approach which combines use of quantification tools to generate and disseminate case studies that showcase quantified outcomes with an effort to improve relationships between landowners and farmers and a focus on providing effective technical and financial assistance to aid SHMS adoption1313Define soil health for this audience 13the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants animals and humans - NRCS definition 1313

Why quantify soil health outcomes

From NRCS ldquoWith soil health management producers can increase profits and reduce costs and risk all while conserving our nations resources for the benefit of all hellipthe extent of these economic benefits has not been consistently quantified ndash a major constraint to soil health management adoption identified as a priority by NRCS partners and customersrdquo

Other economic case studies

NACD amp Datu (2017)4 farmers 16-page each partial budget analysis

EDF (2018)2 farmers total enterprisebudgets

NRCS NY (2017)2 farmers Kemmeren amp Magos 2-pages each PBA

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Use this slide to talk about the CIG project itself awarded in 2018 1313httpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd14703941313

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer ndash corn cover crop

Meet the Team

Michelle PerezProject Leader AFT Water Initiative Director

Florence SwartzProject Economist Retired NRCS NY Economist

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 4: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Why quantify soil health outcomes

From NRCS ldquoWith soil health management producers can increase profits and reduce costs and risk all while conserving our nations resources for the benefit of all hellipthe extent of these economic benefits has not been consistently quantified ndash a major constraint to soil health management adoption identified as a priority by NRCS partners and customersrdquo

Other economic case studies

NACD amp Datu (2017)4 farmers 16-page each partial budget analysis

EDF (2018)2 farmers total enterprisebudgets

NRCS NY (2017)2 farmers Kemmeren amp Magos 2-pages each PBA

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Use this slide to talk about the CIG project itself awarded in 2018 1313httpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd14703941313

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer ndash corn cover crop

Meet the Team

Michelle PerezProject Leader AFT Water Initiative Director

Florence SwartzProject Economist Retired NRCS NY Economist

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 5: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Other economic case studies

NACD amp Datu (2017)4 farmers 16-page each partial budget analysis

EDF (2018)2 farmers total enterprisebudgets

NRCS NY (2017)2 farmers Kemmeren amp Magos 2-pages each PBA

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Use this slide to talk about the CIG project itself awarded in 2018 1313httpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd14703941313

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer ndash corn cover crop

Meet the Team

Michelle PerezProject Leader AFT Water Initiative Director

Florence SwartzProject Economist Retired NRCS NY Economist

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 6: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer ndash corn cover crop

Meet the Team

Michelle PerezProject Leader AFT Water Initiative Director

Florence SwartzProject Economist Retired NRCS NY Economist

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 7: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Meet the Team

Michelle PerezProject Leader AFT Water Initiative Director

Florence SwartzProject Economist Retired NRCS NY Economist

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 8: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Meet the AFT Authors

Aaron RistowNY Stewardship Mgr

Emily BrunerMidwest Science Director

Justin BodellCA Stewardship Manager

Brian BrandtAg Innovations Director OH

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 9: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

External Reviewers

NRCS Economists bull Bryon Kirwan State Economist of Illinois bull Lynn Knight Economist East Regionbull Lakeitha Ruffin State Economist of Oregon

NRCS Soil Health Specialists bull Kabir Zahangir West Regional Soil Health Specialistbull James Hoorman NE Region Soil Health Specialist

NTT Reviewerbull Mindy Selman USDA OEM

COMET-Farm Reviewer bull Matthew Stermer Colorado State University

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Second round including university economists ndash Remember to give a shout out to Gary for his review of the Ifft Case Study

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 10: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Project Goal Drive adoption of soil health practices by

Quantifying the economic and environmental outcomes associated with these management changes

Developing a persuasive education tool to convince farmers to adopt these practices on owned and rented land

Increasing awareness

Improving landowner and operator communication and interaction

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 11: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

DESIGNING THE PROJECT

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo NY Farmer Swede Strip-tilling

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 12: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work

California Lower Stanislaus River Watershed

Illinois Vermilion Headwaters Watershed

Ohio Portage and Toussaint Watershed

New York Genesee River Basin Watershed

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 13: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Materials developed for the Authors

Criteria to Identify Soil Health Successful Farmers 4-page Handout About the Project Why Participate

Consent Form Questionnaire Explanation List of Information to Collect Ahead of Time 20-page Questionnaire in Word 11-tab Excel Economic Calculator 6-tab NTT amp COMET Questionnaire in Excel Case Study Template

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 14: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 15: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Partial Budget Analysis

OverviewThis workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices

NRCS Practice Code Practice Name329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till340 Cover Crops590 Nutrient Management328 Conservation Crop Rotation

With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on aseparate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined intoa single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipmentused and number of passes over the field

ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROPData Sources

ItemLabor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry WorkersMachinery Cost EstimatesMachinery Costs for Fertilizer ApplicationFertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018Index for Agricultural CostsCrop Prices - Non-organic CommodityCrop Prices - Non-organic HayForageCrop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans HayCrop Prices - Organic WheatNutrient ValuesValue of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit)Net Returns Corn Soybeans Production Costs HayNational Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019

National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018Baking Business November 2018 PricesEstimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service

USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)

Source

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor RatesField Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017

2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach

Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13- tab Excel WKBK created by Project Economist Florence Swartz who previously served as the NRCS New York State Economist where she developed two well-received soil health economic case studies that have since been used as the template for the AFT project (and refined significantly)

Read Me

amp8AFT Soil Health Practice Partial Budget Analysisamp8ampD

Farm Info

Clear All Data

Tillage

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cover Crops

I have assumed that there will only be positive impacts for haying or grazing so negative results will not appear in the summary table

Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Nutrient Mngmnt

Change in ManureCompost should only be used when material is purchased off the farm

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Cons Crop Rotation

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Combined Practice Effects

Calculation defaults to current yield and change if there is a value in current yield cell

Partial Budget Analysis

Editable PBA

Prices amp Sources

Machinery Illinois (2)

Lists (2)

image1png

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
List of Power Equipment Crops Grown
Units
40 HP Corn Bu
60 HP Soybeans Bu
75 HP Wheat Bu
105 HP MFWD Hay Ton
130 HP MFWD Forage Ton
160 HP MFWD
200 HP MFWD
225 HP MFWD Types of Tillage
260 HP MFWD
260 HP Tracked Tractor Conventional
310 HP 4WD Reduced Till
360 HP 4WD No-Till
350 HP Tracked Tractor
425 HP 4WD
400 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
275 HP Combine
375 HP Combine
625 HP SP Forage Harvester Base Unit
440 HP Combine
Implements
Chisel Plow 15 Ft
Chisel Plow 23 Ft
Chisel Plow 37 Ft
Chisel Plow 57 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 163 Ft
Chisel Plow Front Dsk 213 Ft Fold
Comb Disk amp V-Ripper 225 Ft
Combination Fld Cult Incorporation Tool 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 23 Ft
Field Cultivator 47 Ft
Field Cultivator 60 Ft
Moldboard Plow 6 Bottom-18 9 Ft
Moldboard Plow 8 Bottom-18 12 Ft
Offset Disk 12 Ft
Tandem Disk 21 Ft Fold
Tandem Disk 30 Ft Fold
V-Ripper 25 OC 10 Ft
V-Ripper 25 OC 18 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 17 Ft
V-Ripper 30 OC 225 Ft
Row Crop Planter 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Row Crop Planter 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Row Crop Planter 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Row Crop Planter 16 Row-30 40 Ft
Row Crop Planter 24 Row-30 60 Ft
Presswheel Drill 16 Ft
Presswheel Drill 20 Ft
Presswheel Drill 25 Ft
Presswheel Drill 30 Ft
Air Seeder Drill wCart 52 Ft
No-Till Corn Planter 15 Ft
No-Till Drill 15 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill 10 Ft
Prairie Grass Drill (Twinned) 21 Ft
Row Cultivator 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Boom Sprayer Self-Propelled 80 Ft
Boom Sprayer Pull-Type 90 Ft
Stalk Shredder 20 Ft
Rotary MowerConditioner 12 Ft
Hay Rake 30 Ft
Grain Swather Self-Prop 25 Ft
Hay Baler PTO Twine 12 Ft
Round Baler 4x5 20 Ft
Round Baler 5x6 20 Ft
Round Baler wBale Wrap 5x6 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 3x3 20 Ft
Large Rectangular Baler 4x3 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 2 Row 5 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wCorn Head 3 Row 75 Ft
Forage Harvester Pull-Type wPickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 6 Row 15 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Corn Head 8 Row 20 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head 12 Ft
Forage Harvester Self-Prop Pickup Head (2X windrows) 24 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 20 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 25 Ft
Combine Flex Platform 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 6 Row-30 15 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 8 Row-30 20 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-30 30 Ft
Combine Chopping Corn Hd 12 Row-22 22 Ft
Combine Belt Pickup Hd 23 Ft
Grain Cart 30 Ft
Machinery List from Illinois
Tillage Fitting Planting
Chisel Plow 12 ft
Chisel Plow 15 ft
Chisel Plow 21 ft
Chisel Plow 23 ft
Chisel Plow 27 ft
Chisel Plow 30 ft
Chisel Plow 35 ft
Chisel Plow 40 ft
Chisel Plow 44 ft
Chisel Plow 47 ft
Chisel Plow 55 ft
Chisel Plow 61 ft
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in
Moldboard plow 6 bottom
Moldboard plow 7 bottom
Moldboard plow 9 bottom
Moldboard plow 10 bottom
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Strip Till 12-row
Strip Till 16-row
Strip Till 24-row
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Broadcast seeding 20 ft
Conventional planter 6-row
Conventional planter 8-row
Conventional planter 12-row
Conventional planter 16-row
Conventional planter 24-row
Conventional planter 32-row
Conventional planter 36-row
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row
Grain drill 15 ft
Grain drill 25 ft
Grain drill 30 ft
Grain drill 35 ft
No-till drill 10 ft
No-till drill 15 ft
No-till drill 20 ft
Air seeder 28 ft
Air seeder 36 ft
Air seeder 44 ft
Field Maintenance
Rotary hoe 30 ft
Rotary hoe 40 ft
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom
Field Sprayer 90 ft
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar
Fertilizer
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk applied
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied Fertilizer application liquid spraying
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal)
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal)
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr)
2017 20181
Tractor List Speed Field Hours Acres Power Imp Fuel Labor Total Total Total
Item HP Price (mph) efficiency Achr or use per year ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($acre) ($ per hr)
Tillage Fitting and Planting
Air seeder 28 ft 290 $64127 600 700 143 571 814 740 750 220 140 1850 1885 26370
Air seeder 36 ft 290 $87048 600 700 183 571 1046 580 790 170 110 1650 1681 30240
Air seeder 44 ft 310 $108030 600 700 224 571 1279 500 800 150 090 1540 1569 34500
Broadcast seeding 20 ft 85 $2350 400 830 80 445 358 390 060 110 250 810 825 6520
Chisel Plow 12 ft 140 $20865 600 825 72 60 432 670 480 210 280 1640 1671 11810
Chisel Plow 15 ft 155 $22568 600 825 90 60 540 560 410 190 220 1380 1406 12420
Chisel Plow 21 ft 240 $41337 600 825 126 60 756 610 540 210 160 1520 1549 19150
Chisel Plow 23 ft 270 $48642 600 825 138 60 828 720 580 210 140 1650 1681 22770
Chisel Plow 27 ft 290 $52524 600 825 162 60 972 650 530 190 120 1490 1518 24140
Chisel Plow 30 ft 310 $56137 600 825 180 60 1080 620 510 190 110 1430 1457 25740
Chisel Plow 35 ft 370 $59708 600 825 210 60 1260 460 470 190 090 1210 1233 25410
Chisel Plow 40 ft 420 $61584 600 825 240 60 1440 440 420 190 080 1130 1151 27120
Chisel Plow 44 ft 420 $85484 600 825 264 60 1584 400 530 170 080 1180 1202 31150
Chisel Plow 47 ft 470 $89855 600 825 282 60 1692 400 520 180 070 1170 1192 32990
Chisel Plow 55 ft 470 $96817 600 825 330 60 1980 340 480 150 060 1030 1049 33990
Chisel Plow 61 ft 570 $102141 600 825 366 60 2196 360 460 170 050 1040 1060 38060
Conventional planter 12-row 140 $98708 600 700 153 60 916 310 1040 100 130 1580 1610 24130
Conventional planter 16-row 155 $125614 600 700 204 60 1222 250 990 080 100 1420 1447 28920
Conventional planter 24-row 190 $190508 600 700 305 60 1833 210 1000 070 060 1340 1365 40930
Conventional planter 32-row 225 $265724 600 700 407 60 2444 180 1050 060 050 1340 1365 54570
Conventional planter 36-row 270 $322167 600 700 458 60 2749 220 1130 060 040 1450 1477 66440
Conventional planter 6-row 95 $36549 600 700 76 60 458 430 770 130 260 1590 1620 12140
Conventional planter 8-row 110 $51728 600 700 102 60 611 410 820 120 190 1540 1569 15680
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Grain drill 15 ft 95 $17160 550 700 70 571 400 470 410 150 280 1310 1335 9170
Grain drill 25 ft 140 $43782 550 700 117 571 666 410 630 130 170 1340 1365 15630
Grain drill 30 ft 175 $55644 550 700 140 571 799 380 660 140 140 1320 1345 18480
Grain drill 35 ft 225 $66289 550 700 163 571 933 450 680 150 120 1400 1426 22870
Moldboard plow 10 bottom 290 $80170 450 825 68 120 810 1570 1240 470 290 3570 3637 24100
Moldboard plow 6 bottom 140 $45137 450 825 41 120 486 1180 1160 370 490 3200 3260 12960
Moldboard plow 7 bottom 225 $51821 450 825 47 120 567 1560 1140 520 420 3640 3708 17200
Moldboard plow 9 bottom 270 $72306 450 825 61 120 729 1630 1240 480 330 3680 3749 22360
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 21 ft 9 225 $64731 500 825 109 60 653 680 980 220 180 2060 2099 22400
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 24 ft 9 240 $72383 500 825 124 60 743 620 960 210 160 1950 1987 24130
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 27 ft 9 240 $82965 500 825 139 60 833 550 980 190 140 1860 1895 25810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 30 ft 9 270 $92999 500 825 154 60 923 640 990 190 130 1950 1987 29980
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 33 ft 9 270 $98195 500 825 169 60 1013 590 950 170 120 1830 1864 30880
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 38 ft 3 310 $111578 500 825 191 60 1148 580 960 180 100 1820 1854 34810
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 44 ft 3 370 $132319 500 825 221 60 1328 440 980 180 090 1690 1722 37390
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 50 ft 3 370 $147780 500 825 251 60 1508 390 960 160 080 1590 1620 39950
Mulch finisher (disk chisel and drag) 56 ft 3 420 $158101 500 825 281 60 1688 340 920 160 070 1490 1518 41910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 11 ft 3 in 120 $19979 500 825 56 60 338 780 580 230 350 1940 1976 10910
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 13 ft 9 in 175 $24765 500 825 69 60 413 780 590 280 290 1940 1976 13340
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 16 ft 3 in 225 $27875 500 825 81 60 488 910 560 300 240 2010 2048 16330
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 18 ft 9 in 270 $41911 500 825 94 60 563 1060 730 310 210 2310 2353 21660
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 21 ft 3 in 290 $43951 500 825 106 60 638 1000 680 300 190 2170 2211 23060
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 6 ft 95 $10950 500 825 30 60 180 1100 600 340 660 2700 2751 8100
Mulch tiller (disk chisel shanks) 8 ft 110 $13000 500 825 50 60 300 830 430 240 400 1900 1936 9500
No-till drill 10 ft 110 $41277 550 700 47 5715 267 890 1470 260 420 3040 3097 14190
No-till drill 15 ft 140 $47181 550 700 70 5715 400 680 1120 220 280 2300 2343 16100
No-till drill 20 ft 175 $69665 550 700 93 5715 533 570 1240 200 210 2220 2262 20720
No-till planter (30 rows) 12-row 155 $111116 600 700 153 60 916 330 1170 110 130 1740 1773 26570
No-till planter (30 rows) 16-row 225 $142158 600 700 204 60 1222 360 1120 120 100 1700 1732 34620
No-till planter (30 rows) 24-row 240 $215324 600 700 305 60 1833 250 1130 090 060 1530 1559 46730
No-till planter (30 rows) 8-row 110 $60000 600 700 102 60 611 410 950 120 190 1670 1701 17000
Offset disk 10 ft 7 in 110 $19989 600 825 63 60 381 660 520 190 310 1680 1712 10660
Offset disk 12 ft 1 in 140 $22335 600 825 72 60 435 660 510 210 270 1650 1681 11960
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 12-row split 155 $43993 600 700 153 30 458 330 840 110 130 1410 1436 21530
Split-row planter (soybean acres only)sup2 16-row split 175 $56118 600 700 204 30 611 260 810 090 100 1260 1284 25660
Strip Till 12-row 290 $81077 600 800 175 60 1047 610 950 180 110 1850 1885 32290
Strip Till 16-row 310 $102131 600 800 233 60 1396 480 900 140 090 1610 1640 37470
Strip Till 24-row 570 $104000 600 800 349 60 2095 280 610 180 060 1130 1151 39450
Tandem disk 23 ft 7 in 140 $56200 600 830 142 60 854 340 650 110 140 1240 1263 17650
Tandem disk 26 ft 5 in 175 $62475 600 830 159 60 957 330 640 120 120 1210 1233 19300
Tandem disk 29 ft 3 in 225 $67258 600 830 177 60 1059 420 620 140 110 1290 1314 22780
Tandem disk 33 ft 7 in 240 $77129 600 830 203 60 1216 380 620 130 100 1230 1253 24930
Vertical tillage rolling basket 20 ft 9 in 190 $58791 850 825 176 60 1058 370 550 120 110 1150 1172 20280
Vertical tillage rolling basket 26 ft 6 in 240 $72505 850 825 225 60 1352 340 530 120 090 1080 1100 24330
Vertical tillage rolling basket 29 ft 3 in 270 $79854 850 825 249 60 1492 400 530 120 080 1130 1151 28090
Vertical tillage rolling basket 30 ft 8 in 290 $83646 850 825 261 60 1564 410 530 120 080 1140 1161 29720
Vertical tillage rolling basket 33 ft 7 in 370 $91593 850 825 285 60 1713 340 530 140 070 1080 1100 30830
Vertical tillage rolling basket 40 ft 8 in 570 $119555 850 825 346 60 2074 380 570 180 060 1190 1212 41140
V-Ripper (shanks only) 11 ft 240 $8342 500 825 55 60 330 1400 250 470 360 2480 2527 13640
V-Ripper (shanks only) 15 ft 270 $12929 500 825 75 60 450 1320 280 390 260 2250 2292 16880
V-Ripper (shanks only) 18 ft 310 $15575 500 825 92 60 550 1210 280 370 220 2080 2119 19060
V-Ripper (shanks only) 22 ft 420 $18807 500 825 108 60 650 890 280 420 180 1770 1803 19180
V-Ripper (shanks only) 8 ft 110 $6726 500 825 42 60 250 1000 260 290 480 2030 2068 8450
Crop Maintenance
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 27 ft 6 in 140 $71215 500 800 133 70 933 360 1000 110 150 1620 1650 21600
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 37 ft 6 in 240 $89420 500 800 182 70 1273 420 920 140 110 1590 1620 28910
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 47 ft 6 in 290 $103372 500 800 230 70 1612 460 840 140 090 1530 1559 35240
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 52 ft 6 in 370 $107855 500 800 255 70 1782 380 790 160 080 1410 1436 35890
Anhydrous ammonia applicator 62 ft 6 in 470 $119450 500 800 303 70 2121 320 730 170 070 1290 1314 39090
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting with tool bar 126 126
Fertilizer Application Anhydrous injecting without tool bar 115 115
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied 545 545
Fertilizer application dry bulk strip-till 1555 1555
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing 126 126
Fertilizer application liquid spraying 69 69
Fertilizer application liquid strip-till knifed 1415 1415
Field and ditch mowing 15 ft 140 $20568 400 800 58 50 291 820 760 260 340 2180 2221 12680
Field and ditch mowing 20 ft 140 $26803 400 800 78 50 388 620 750 200 260 1830 1864 14200
Field cultivator 29 ft 6 in 155 $55006 650 830 193 60 1157 260 470 090 100 920 937 17750
Field cultivator 31 ft 6 in 225 $55732 650 830 206 60 1236 360 440 120 100 1020 1039 21010
Field cultivator 35 ft 6 in 240 $58138 650 830 232 60 1393 330 410 110 090 940 958 21820
Field cultivator 40 ft 6 in 270 $80494 650 830 265 60 1589 370 500 110 070 1050 1070 27810
Field cultivator 44 ft 6 in 270 $83900 650 830 291 60 1746 340 470 100 070 980 998 28520
Field cultivator 48 ft 6 in 290 $89329 650 840 321 60 1926 330 460 100 060 950 968 30490
Field cultivator 52 ft 6 in 310 $92551 650 840 347 60 2085 320 440 100 060 920 937 31970
Field cultivator 56 ft 6 in 310 $97439 650 840 374 60 2244 300 430 090 050 870 886 32530
Field cultivator 60 ft 6 in 370 $98938 650 840 400 60 2402 240 410 100 050 800 815 32030
Field cultivator 64 ft 6 in 420 $100587 650 840 427 60 2561 230 390 110 050 780 795 33300
Field Sprayer 90 ft 95 $53586 700 650 496 40 1985 070 280 020 040 410 418 20350
Manure Application liquid drag line (cost per gal) 001115
Manure Application liquid injected (cost per gal) 001235 1235
Manure Application loading and spreading solid manure ($hr) 10725
Rotary hoe 30 ft 140 $12000 1000 830 302 13252 400 160 280 050 070 560 571 16900
Rotary hoe 40 ft 225 $23000 1000 830 402 13252 533 180 400 060 050 690 703 27770
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 12-row 155 $26000 450 830 136 445 604 370 400 120 150 1040 1060 14130
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 16-row 225 $35000 450 830 181 445 806 410 410 130 110 1060 1080 19200
Row-crop cultivator (30 rows) 8-row 140 $12000 450 830 91 442 400 530 280 170 220 1200 1223 10870
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 100 ft boom 85 $333394 950 700 806 83 6690 040 410 010 020 480 489 38690
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 80 ft boom 85 $226148 950 700 645 83 5352 050 340 010 030 430 438 27730
Self-propelled sprayer (High-crop ready) 90 ft boom 85 $331180 950 700 725 83 6021 040 450 010 030 530 540 38450
Self-propelled sprayer 120 ft boom 85 $358919 950 700 967 83 8028 030 360 010 020 420 428 40630
httpfarmdocillinoisedumanagemachineryfield_operations_2017pdf
Fertilizer application costs from 2018 Iowa State University Custom Rate Survey
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
BLS Labor Rate Farm Management
45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers $2442
Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
2018 National Average Prices1 2018 Organic Crop Prices
Crop Unit Average Crop Unit Price
Corn Bushel $355 Corn Bushel $936
Hay Ton $16400 Hay Ton $19500
Soybeans Bushel $860 Soybeans Bushel $1747
Wheat Bushel $515 Wheat Bushel $992
Forage Ton $16400 Forage Ton $19500
Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb $119 Stockers (NASS 2017 Rpt) Lb
1 Based on marketings and monthly prices received from August 1 2018 - December 31 2018 Sources
Sources Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Crop Values 2018 Summary USDA NASS Corn Soybeans and Hay NASS National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report December 19 2018
Forage Agricultural Prices NASS February 28 2019
PPPI Consider using Producer Price Index
Year Value
2000 587
2017 1065
Index 18143100511
Producers Prices Paid Index
Soil Productivity Information
Sheet and Rill Erosion - Calculated Benefit of Reduction in Fertilizer Nutrient Loss
Fertilizer LbsTon Soil $Lb CostTon
Nitrogen 232 $030 $070
Phosphorus 100 $039 $039
Total Value $109
This analysis follows same methodology found on page 23 of the Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP
We assume topsoil contains 40 lbs of organic matter or 232 lbs carbon
With Average CN ratio of 101 each ton of soil contains 232 lbs of N that would need to be replaced by the farmer
Soil also contains 05 P or one pound per ton of soil
Fertilizer prices used elsewhere in this study were used to derive a total value
Source Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
Fertilizer UAN Granular Urea
N 32 46
Single Nutrient Fetilizer $Lb $Ton $28700 2915
Nitrogen $030 Pounds NTon 640 920
Phosphate $039 PriceLB N $045 $032
Potash $027 Sources
Source Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa -2018 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Ag Decision Maker UAN 32 Price Progressive Farmer Nov 12 2018 PriceTon
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices Granular Urea Price Fertilizerworks Urea Basket Price Report on November 16 2018
Nutrient ValueTon of Manure
Nitrogen Phosphorus Total
Total N (LbsTon Manure) 12 96
Available 3 26
Value $090 $101 $191
Source from Univ Nebraska httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Net Income for Conservation Crop Rotation
(Using value of production less operating costs)
Crop 2017 1 Benchmark (2018) Current (2018)
Corn 273 $278 $278
Soybeans 297 $285 $285
Wheat 96 $98 $98
Hay $0 $0
Years of Hay 0 0
Hay establishment $111
Hay maint amp harvest $111
Revenue (234TA $164T) $384
Hay Maint amp Harvest
National Average Yield (TA) $234
National Average Price ($A) $16400
Annual Fertilizer $81
Harvest $30
1Producer prices paid index used to update costs from 2017 values to 2018
2017 1065
2018 1085
Factor 10187793427
Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Sources
Economic Research Service Commodity Costs and Returns
Hay production costs from Iowa State University Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa -2018 (Oats and Hay Production)
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
National Average Hay Price Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost 590 Yield
340 Graz Y Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 328 Yield
340 Hay Y Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413
328 Yield Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
All Practices Annual Total Increased Net Income $64755 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
329 Estab Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685 329 Estab
329 Nutrients Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem All values are in 2018 dollars 329 Agrochem
329 Eros This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer 329 Education
340 Nutrients Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009 340 Costs
340 Agrochem For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies 340 Nutrients
340 Eros 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Financial Assistance Payments 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem Increase in Income 340 Education
328 Nutrients Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 590 Education
329 PosEff2 Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 328 Education
340PosEff2 Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 All Practices Agrochem
All PracticesNegEff1
All PracticesNegEff2
All PracticesNegEff3
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Economic Effects of Soil Health Practices
Increases in Net Income Decreases in Net Income
Increase in Income Decrease in Income
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Yield NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Yield
340 Yield Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops $4386 825 $36185 NA $000 0 $0 340 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Yield
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Net Income
340 Graz Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Yield
340 Hay Y NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices
590 Yield NA $000 0 $0 $0
328 Net Income NA $000 0 $0
328 Yield NA $000 0 $0
All Practices NA $000 0 $0
Total Increased Income $36185 Total Decreased Income $0
Decrease in Cost Increase in Cost
Item Per Acre Acres Total Item Per Acre Acres Total
329 Estab NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Estab
329 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Nutrients
329 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Agrochem
329 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 Education
340 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crop Costs $3000 825 $24750 340 Costs
340 Agrochem Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use $1480 825 $12210 NA $000 0 $0 340 Nutrients
340 Eros NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Agrochemicals
590 Field Operations NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340 Grazing Infrastructure
590 Nutrients Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used $1983 825 $16360 NA $000 0 $0 340 Haying Harvest
590 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 Cover Crops Learning Activities $296 825 $2442 340 Education
328 Nutrients NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Field Operations
328 Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Nutrients
328 Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590 Agrochem
329 PosEff 1 NA $000 0 $0 Nutrient Management Learning Activities $089 1650 $1465 590 Education
329 PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Nutrients
329 PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Agrochem
340PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328 Education
340PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff1
340PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff2
590PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 329 NegEff3
590PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff1
590PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff2
328PosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 340NegEff3
328PosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 VRT Upcharge $050 825 $413 590NegEff1
328PosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff2
All Practices NPK NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 590NegEff3
All Practices Agrochem NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff1
All Practices Erosion NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff2
All PracticesPosEff1 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 328NegEff3
All PracticesPosEff2 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices NPK
All PracticesPosEff3 NA $000 0 $0 NA $000 0 $0 All Practices Agrochem
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff1
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff2
NA $000 0 $0 All PracticesNegEff3
Total Decreased Cost $28570 Total Increased Cost $29070
Annual Total Increased Net Income $64754 Annual Total Decreased Net Income $29070
Total Acres in this Study Area 1650 Total Acres in this Study Area 1650
Annual Per Acre Increased Net Income $39 Annual Per Acre Decreased Net Income $18
Annual Change in Total Net Income = $35685
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $22
All values are in 2018 dollars
This table represents costs and benefits over the entire study area (_____ acres) as reported by the farmer
Source for Value of Reduced Erosion Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
For Project methodology see farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudies
Impact of Financial Assistance Payments
Increase in Income
Soil Health Practice Per Acre Acres Total
Tillage (Residue Management) ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Cover Crop ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Nutrient Management ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Conservation Crop Rotation ERRORDIV0 0 ERRORDIV0
Total Increase due to Financial Assistance ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Total Net Income = ERRORDIV0
Annual Change in Net Income Per Acre = $000
Soil Health Effects for All Soil Health Practices
Use this page to calculate effects that cannot be attributed to just one practice
Yield Impact Due to Soil Health Practices
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Soil Health Pracitces on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Primary nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
ManureComopost value from httpswaterunledumanuremanure-value
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Change in Usage of Agrochemicals due to Soil Health Practices
Cash Crop Total
Acres Affected 0
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
TotalAc $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $000
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Soil Health Practices
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)1 $109
Number of Acres
Tons Reduced Erosion2 (per acre)
Total Value $000
1Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
2As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair due to Cover Crops
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Other Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Changes due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Change in Net Income due to Adopting Conservation Crop Rotation
Benchmark Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Crops Grown Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Conservation Crop Rotation
Acreage in Rotation 1650
Cash Crop Years in Rotation Acres Net Income All Acres
Corn 1 825 $278 $229455
Soybeans 1 825 $285 $235381
0 0 0 $0 $0
0 0 0 $0 $0
Weighted Average Annual Cost 2 1650 $282 $464835
Change in Net Income due to Change in Crop Rotation $000 $0
Source for net income USDA ERS Commodity Costs and Returns
Yield Impacts due to Crop Rotation
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 0 000 0 0
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $355 $860 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Conservation Crop Rotation on Pesticides Used
Cash Crop Corn Soybeans 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Crop Rotation
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Rotation 16500
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Mechanical Erosion Repair
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total ValueAc of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Conservation Crop Rotation Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Nutrient Management
Changes in Machinery Costs1 for Crop Fertilization
Crop 1 Soybeans
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 2 Corn
Benchmark
Acres Treated 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment 825
Yrs In Rotation 1
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
Fertilizer application dry bulk applied $545 $000
Fertilizer application liquid side dressing $1260 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 3
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop 4
Benchmark
Acres Treated
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Treatment
Yrs In Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Gallons Hours Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Costs due to Change in Nutrient Management
Benchmark With Treatment
Cash Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
Soybeans $000 $0 $000 $0
Corn $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Average per Acre or Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $0
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Nutrient Mngmnt
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu Bu 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $355 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Nutrient Mngmnt on Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc) -37
Change in Phosphorus CostAc -$1443 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc) -20
Change in Potassium CostAc -$540 $000 $000 $000
ManureCompost (+- TonsAc)
Change in ManureCompost CostAc3 $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac -$1983 $000 $000 $000 -$1983
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$16360 $0 $0 $0 -$16360
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Nutrient Management on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop Soybeans Corn 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Nutrient Management Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$000
$000
$000
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
VRT Upcharge $050 825 $41250
$000
$000
Changes due to Adopting Cover Crops
Cover Crop Costs
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans Total
Years in Rotation
flaws flawsShould we assume farmers will use cover crops every year in their rotation		 1 0 0 0 1
Acres Planted 825 825
Cover Crop Seed CostAc $1200
Establishment CostAc $1000
Termination CostAc $800
Other CostsAc
Total CostAc $3000 $000 $000 $000
Total Cost All Acres Planted $24750 $0 $0 $0 $24750
Weighted Average $3000
Hay is seeded only once during the rotation therefore the cost of the cover before hay is divided by of years of rotation
Yield Impacts due to Cover Crops
Is this an organic farm (YN) N
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit Bu 0 0 0
Previous Yield 51
Reported Increasedecrease (+-) 10
Calculated Change in Yield 510 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $860 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $4386 $000 $000 $000 $4386
Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres $36185 $0 $0 $0 $36185
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Cover Crops on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop Following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Cover Crops on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop following Cover Soybeans 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc $4000
Herbicide Change (+-) -37
Herbicide Change in CostAc -$1480 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre -$1480 $000 $000 $000 -$1480
Number of Acres 8250 00 00 00 8250
Total for All Acres -$12210 $0 $0 $0 -$12210
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Cover Crops
Retained Nutrients Benefits Cost per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018) $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in Cover Crops 8250
Total Value $000
Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total Received 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Cover Crop Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total For Acres Affects
$0
$0
$0
Grazing and Haying Cover Crops
ForageHay Value ($Ton)5 $164
Grazing Cover Dairy
Grazing Cover Infrastructure Costs $Ac Number of Acres Grazed
Fence Number of Days Grazed
Watering Facilities Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Additional Labor and Management ($Ac) Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Other Annual Grazing Cost ($Ac) Grazing BenefitAc $000
Total CostsAc $000 Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Grazing Cover CowCalf Pair
Number of Acres Grazed
Number of Days Grazed Grazing Cover Stockers
Stocking Rate (AUAc) Number of Acres Grazed
Forage Demand (lbAUDay) Number of Days Grazed
Total Grazing BenefitAc $000 Stocking Rate (AUAc)
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000 Forage Demand (lbAUDay)
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000 Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing BenefitAc $000
Net Grazing Benefit all Acres Grazed $000
Haying Cover Crops 5NASS 2017 Agricultural Statistics Annual Chapter VII
Number of acres Hayed
Hay Yield (TonsAc)
Income from Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage $0
Cost of Harvesting Cover as Hay or Silage
Net Haying Benefit ($Ac) $000
Net Haying Benefit all Acres Harvested $000
Changes due to Changing Tillage
Impact of Tillage Change on Establishment Cost1
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Crop
Benchmark
Current Acres Planted
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Current Tillage
Years in Rotation 0
Machine CostAc Passes Total CostAc
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
$000 $000
Total $000
Change in Machinery Cost due to Change in Tillage
Benchmark With Treatment
Crop Per Acre All Acres Per Acre All Acres
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
0 $000 $0 $000 $0
Total All Acres $0 $000
Weighted Average Change in Cost (Negative value means decrease in cost) $000 $000
If Hay is part of the rotation establishment costs are divided by the number of years in the rotation
1Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Yield Impacts due to Change in Tillage
Is this an organic farm (YN)
User enters EITHER Current Yield and Reported Increasedecrease (+-) OR Reported Change in Yield
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Unit 0 0 0 0
Previous Yield
Reported Increasedecrease (+-)
Calculated Change in Yield 000 000 000 000
Reported Change in Yield
Price per Unit1 $000 $000 $000 $000
Per Acre $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Number of Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Crop Prices from Crop Values 2018 Summary April 2019 USDA NASS
Note Rounding of the Calculated Change in Yield will lead to discrepancies between Total Per Ac change in value compared with hand calculations
Impact of Change in Tillage on Primary Nutrients Used
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Nitrogen (+- LbsAc)
Change in Nitrogen CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Phosphorus (+- LbsAc)
Change in Phosphorus CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Potassium (+- LbsAc)
Change in Potassium CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Nutrient values from Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018 Iowa State University
Nitrogen price is the average of anhydrous ammonia Urea and UAN prices
Phosphorus price is for phosphate
Potassium price is for potash
Impact of Change in Tillage on Pesticide Use
Cash Crop 0 0 0 0 Weighted Average
Herbicide CostAc
Herbicide Change (+-)
Herbicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Insecticide CostAc
Insecticide Change (+-)
Insecticide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Fungicide CostAc
Fungicide Change (+-)
Fungicide Change in CostAc $000 $000 $000 $000
Total Per Ac $000 $000 $000 $000 $000
Acres 00 00 00 00 00
Total for All Acres $000 $000 $000 $000 $0
Value of Decreased Erosion due to Change in Tillage
Retained Nutrients Benefits Value per Ton Erosion
Value of N and P per Ton of Soil (2018)3 $109
Tons Reduced Erosion4 (per acre)
Acres in No-Till 00
Total Value $000
3Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for EQIP 2009
4As reported by farmer or from conservation plan
Reduced Mechanical Erosion Repair Due to No-till
Total Change in Repair Cost Enter a negative number if cost of repairs decreased
Total per Acre Value of Decreased Erosion $000
Financial Assistance Payments
Source Per Acre Number of Acres Total for All Acres Weighted AveAcre
$0
$0
Total 0 $0 ERRORDIV0
Other Tillage Benefits and Costs
Enter costvalue per acre and number of acres Namedescription should include the name of the conservation practice responsible for the change
Positive EffectsDecreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Negative EffectsIncreased Costs
NameDescription Per Acre Value Number of Acres Affected Total for Acres Affected
$0
$0
$0
Farmer Name
Jim Ifft
Watershed Name
Five Mile Creek
Rotations
Benchmark Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Current Rotation
Crop Years Acres
Corn 1 825
Soybeans 1 825
Total 2 1650
Time Spent on Educational Activities
Conservation Practice HoursYear Total $Yr Acres $Acre
Residue and Tillage Management Learning Activities $0 0 $000
Cover Crops Learning Activities 100 $2442 825 $296
Nutrient Management Learning Activities 60 $1465 1650 $089
Conservation Crop Rotation Learning Activities $0 1650 $000
Cost calculated based on $2442hour labor rate and number of acres
of each practice taken from practice specific worksheet
Source for Labor Rate Bureau of Labor Statistics First-Line Supervisors Farming Fishing and Forestry Occupations
ECONOMIC PARTIAL BUDGET CALCULATOR - CASH CROP
Overview
This workbook performs a partial budget analysis of the following Soil Health Enhancing Conservation Practices
NRCS Practice Code Practice Name
329 Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till
345 Residue and Tillage Management - Reduced Till
340 Cover Crops
590 Nutrient Management
328 Conservation Crop Rotation
With the exception of the two Residue and Tillage Management Practices data entry for each practice occurs on a
separate worksheet Residue and Tillage Management - No-Till and Reduced Tillage data entry is combined into
a single worksheet due to similarity between the two practices Cost differences are captured by type of equipment
used and number of passes over the field
General Information
1 Results of all per acre calculations are weighted averages based on number of acres for each crop
2 Calculations of costs and benefits for various Conservation Practices (or Combined Practice Effects) occur within
each of the worksheets
3 Erosion Benefits If there is mechanical repair the cost is spread out over the entire acreage included in the
analysis This allows the result to be added to the per acre value of reduced sheet and rill erosion
4 Enter reductions as negative values and increases as positive values for changes in yield fertilizer use and
agrochemical use
About Individual Worksheets
1 Farm Info
a Takes information that is used throughout the workbook
b If farmer did not change hisher rotation fill in both the Benchmark Rotation and Current Rotation table with
identical information
c Be sure to enter total acres in Current Rotation table This defines the Soil Health Operating Unit
2 Tillage
a Any cost associated with hay establishment is protrated by the number of years of hay in the rotation
b Acres and years in rotation populate automatically once user selects a crop
3 Cover Crops
a Cover Crops cost for hay is prorated based on number of years of hay in the rotation
4 Nutrient Management
a This worksheet is set up like the Tillage worksheet User selects equipment that comes closest to what the
farmer is using and costs are calculated automatically Costs here are for equipment ONLY and do not include
costs for fertilizer
5 Conservation Crop Rotation
a First two tables are poplulated automatically from Farm Info worksheet if the Benchmark Rotation table is populated
b Net income for establishing growing and harvesting various crops are loaded into the workbook and used to
automatically calculate costs
6 Combined Practice Effects
a This worksheet provides a place to record benefits or costs that cannot be attributed to a single soil health
practice
7 Partial Budget Analysis
a This worksheet performs a partial budget analysis by pulling the results of calculations on the Conservation
Practice worksheets and placing them in the correct quadrant of the partial budget analysis This worksheet
then calculates Net Returns per acre and Total Net Returns for the entire operating unit
b Analysis is divided into three primary parts
i Increase in Net Income and Decrease in Cost (left side) record positive effects
ii Decrease in Net Income and Increase in Cost (right side) record negative effects
iii Net returns are displayed at the bottom of the table
BEFORE BEGINNING DATA ENTRY CREATE A NEW VERSION OF THE WORKBOOK
FOR YOUR SOIL HEALTH FARMER
This workbook is protected Data entry is allowed in yellow-shaded cells
Farm Info Worksheet contains a Clear All Data button which will clear all data entered in yellow-shaded cells
How to Create a Clean Version of the Partial Budget Analysis
Upon completion of data entry the Partial Budget Analysis will have a number of blank rows The user can create a
clean version of the analysis using the unprotected Editable PBA worksheet and doing the following
1 Click the upper left corner of the worksheet to select the entire worksheet
2 Right click with mouse and select Copy from the pop-up menu
3 Right click again and select Values from the Paste Options This removes all formulas from the table which ensures
that values wont change as you begin repositioning content in the table
4 Delete Columns A and K Effect identifiers are no longer needed once analysis is completed
5 Cut and paste each populated section of data for Item Per Acre Acres and Total and paste it at the top of the quadrant
6 Once all of the cells containing results have been arranged at the top delete blank rows below them Note that
the table may contain more entries on one side of the ledger than the other meaning that blank rows will remain on the
side with fewer entries
7 If one quadrant of the table has no entries (eg there are no decreases in net income) enter None Identified in the
Item column
Data Sources
Item Source
Labor Rate 45-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Farming Fishing and Forestry Workers Bureau of Labor Statistics - 2018 Labor Rates
Machinery Cost Estimates Field Operations Farm Business Mngmnt University of Illinois June 2017
Machinery Costs for Fertilizer Application 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Fertilizer Prices Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2018
Index for Agricultural Costs Producer Prices Paid Index National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop Prices - Non-organic Commodity USDA Economics Statistica amp Market Information System Agricultural Prices (NASS)
Crop Prices - Non-organic HayForage Agricultural Prices NASS February 29 2019
Crop Prices - Organic Corn Soybeans Hay National Organic Grain and Feedstuffs Report National Ag Statistics Service December 19 2018
Crop Prices - Organic Wheat Baking Business November 2018 Prices
Nutrient Values Estimated Costs of Production in Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
Value of Nutrients in Soil (for erosion reduction benefit) Interim Final Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 2009
Net Returns Corn Soybeans Wheat Commodity Costs and Returns Economic Research Service
Production Costs Hay Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2019 Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
National Average Hay Yield Statistics by Subject NASS 2018
Page 16: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

METHODS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 17: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Nutrient Tracking Tool

httpntttiaertarletoneduwelcomesnewlocale=en

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 18: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

COMET FARM

httpcometfarmnrelcolostateedu

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 19: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

THE RESULTS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 20: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Press release today with quote from NRCS Chief Lohr amp AFT President Piotti13Blogs by NRCS amp AFT next week134 local dissemination events 13Nationwide webinar 13

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 21: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 22: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

129 ROI

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 23: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans Ford County Vermilion Headwater

Watershed

Soil health practices No-till amp strip-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area 1400 2600 acres

NTT results On a 110-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 45 89 amp 76

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 192

Annual SH Benefits $83828Annual SH Costs $36742 Annual SH PROFITS $47086 or $34ac(2018 dollars)

129 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Majority of decreased cost and associated increased net income provided by significant reduction in P and K application 1314 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 24: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 25: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans Marion amp Delaware Counties Upper Scioto

River Watershed

Soil health practices No-till cover crops amp nutrient management

Study area All 1250 acres operation

NTT results a 70-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 58 74 88

COMET results Same field total GHG emissions reduced by 494

Annual SH Benefits $184011Annual SH Costs $136442Annual SH PROFITS $47569 or $38ac(2018 dollars)

35 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 cars

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 26: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation

343 ROI

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 27: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation Genesee County Genesee River Watershed Sweet corn alfalfa corn silage grain corn Soil health practices No-till strip-till cover

crops amp nutrient management Study area 1500 4500 acres

NTT results On a 25-acre field N P amp sediment reduced by 40 92 amp 96

COMET results Same field total GHGs emissions reduced by 560

Annual SH Benefits $106079Annual SH Costs $23822Annual SH PROFITS $82257 or $55ac(2018 dollars)

343 ROI

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Largest increase in profits from increased yields hellip1313Car equivalent

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 28: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

OVERARCHING FINDINGS

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Photo Credit - Edwin Remsberg and USDA-SARE Collected by Brennan13

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 29: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Improved Yield2 to 15 yield increases attributable tosoil health practices

Annual Change in Per Acre Net Income Average increase for 3 row crop farmers was $42acyr

Return on Investment Average ROI for 3 row crop farms was 169 ranging from 35 to 343

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Datu findings 1313Fertilizer costs decreased by up to $50 per acre13Erosion repair costs decreased by up to $16 per acre13Yields increased by up to $76 per acre1313Improved Yield  Yields for all four farmers increased  After accounting for the effects of enhanced seed hybrids and other technological improvements yield increases associated with better soil health ranged from 2 to 22  13Annual Change in Net Income  An evaluation of all reported effects (both positive and negative) from adopting soil health practices shows that the three field crop farmers in the study improved their bottom line by an average of $42 per acre per year  Due to his high value crop the almond grower in California saw an increase in annual net income of $657 per acre  13Return on Investment  ROI allows us to compare the efficiency of investment (ie their bang for the buck) among the four farms in the case study by calculating how much they got back per dollar invested  The average ROI for the four farms is 176 ranging from 35 to 343  Note that although the almond grower saw the highest increase in net income his ROI of 198 was not the highest because he had to invest more (ie in a fertigation system) to see the results he is getting1313

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 30: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Changes to Fertilizer Costs3 row crop farmers saving $17 to $66acyr

- reduced P applications 35 to 50 - reduced K applications 50

1 farmer reduced N on corn by 5

Changes to Machinery Fuel and Labor Costs3 row crop farmers saving $18 to $35acyr averaging $26acyr

Presenter
Presentation Notes
On the other hand machinery cost changes due to changes in nutrient management varied for all four farms  Half of the farmers saw an increase in cost while costs remained unchanged or decreased for the other two  The greatest increase in machinery cost related to fertilizers was the switch to fertigation for the almond grower with an estimated annual cost of $130 per acre13

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 31: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms

Herbicide UsageMixed results1 farmer saves $19acyr 1 farmer spends $5acyr more 1 farmer was unchanged

Learning CostsTotal cost ranged from $440 to $12940yr Per acre costs range from 44 cents to $1035

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Niemeyer (OH) spends time learning for his cover crop consulting business too (so we took frac12 his learning costs for the farm operation)

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 32: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms

Water Quality Improvement3 row crop farmers observed reduced soil and water runoffOn selected fields NTT estimated N losses were reduced 40 to 58 P losses reduced 74 to 92 amp sediment losses reduced 76 to 96

Climate ImprovementCOMET-Farm estimated total GHG emissions were reduced on each field by 192 to 560 equivalent to taking to 17 cars off the road

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 33: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Farmer Uses of the Case Studies

We hope farmers will share the case studies with

Existing landowners - To discuss sharing the risks and rewards of the soil health investments

New landowners ndash To add new fields

Bankers ndashTo secure additional financing for the farm expansion

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Source httpswwwchesapeakeprogresscomclean-waterwatershed-implementation-plans13

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 34: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

STAY TUNED4 MORE CASE STUDIES IN REVIEW

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 35: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

Saving the Land that Sustains Us

THANK YOU

Michelle Perezmperezfarmlandorg

Emily Bruner ebrunerfarmlandorg

AFT Site farmlandorgsoilhealthcasestudiesNRCS Sitehttpswwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsdetailnationalsoilshealthcid=nrcseprd1470394

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors
Page 36: Soil Health Case Studies: Quantifying Economic, …/media/others/events/2019/ag...Case Study Template Improved Yield: Yields for all four farmers increased. After accounting for the

19 + Tasks for Authors 1 Find Soil Health Successful Famers that match the Criteria2 Meet amp discuss project with each farmer complete the List of Things complete

signed consent form3 Schedule interviews 4 Learn the 3 quantitative methods5 Conduct economics interview record it amp clean-up notes6 Conduct NTT amp COMET interview record it amp clean-up7 Enter economics data into the Calculator amp compute results8 Enter NTT data into NTT online amp compute results9 Enter COMET data into COMET online amp compute results10 Discus economics results with Flo amp Michelle 11 Discuss NTT results with Mindy Selman NTT lead for USDA OEM12 Discuss COMET results with Matt Stermer COMET lead for CSU13 Write the case study14 Go through review amp editing by Flo amp Michelle 15 Go through NRCS reviewhelliphellip

  • Slide Number 1
  • Outline
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Why quantify soil health outcomes
  • Other economic case studies
  • Slide Number 6
  • Meet the Team
  • Meet the AFT Authors
  • External Reviewers
  • Project Goal
  • Slide Number 11
  • Locations selected to leverage already existing AFT work
  • Materials developed for the Authors
  • Slide Number 14
  • Partial Budget Analysis
  • Slide Number 16
  • Nutrient Tracking Tool
  • COMET FARM
  • Slide Number 19
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • 4 AFT-NRCS Soil Health Case Studies
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Larry Thorndyke IL corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Eric Niemeyer OH corn-soybeans
  • Economic benefits of soil health practices outweigh the costs of implementation
  • Jay Swede NY diversified crop rotation
  • Slide Number 28
  • Yield amp Income Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Input Benefits amp Costs of Soil Health Practices Across Three Farms
  • Environmental Benefits of Soil Health Practices Across all Four Farms
  • Farmer Uses of the Case Studies
  • Slide Number 34
  • Slide Number 35
  • 19 + Tasks for Authors

Quantifying the Value Proposition of Employer … Housing...Center for Housing Policy May 2008 Quantifying the Value Proposition of Employer-Assisted Housing: A Case Study of Aurora

Quantifying the services of natural and built ...€¦ · Report Quantifying the Services of Natural and Built Infrastructure in the Context of Climate Change: The Case of the Tana

Growth Expectations, Dividend Yields, and Future Stock …zda/DJS_sy.pdf · Growth Expectations, Dividend Yields, and Future Stock ... model. In the dynamic case, stock yield is an

Case Study: NanoClear - Aculon...Case Study: NanoClear CASE STUDY Nanocoatings Can Increase First Pass Yields How Rauland Reduced SMT related defects by over 50%; Increased throughput

QUANTIFYING THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF EFFECTIVE … · QUANTIFYING THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF EFFECTIVE REDRESS: LARGE E-COMMERCE DATA SETS AND THE COST-BENEFIT CASE FOR INVESTING IN

Quantifying Mangrove

Optimal Field Development and Control Yields Accelerated ...Optimal Field Development and Control Yields Accelerated, More Reliable, Production: A Case Study Morteza Haghighat, Khafiz

QUANTIFYING AVAILABLE WATER AT THE VILLAGE LEVEL: A CASE ... · This report, “Quantifying Available Water at the Village Level: A Case Study Horongo, Mali, est Africa,” is hereby

Quantifying Taste

Quantifying fitness

Quantifying Vulnerability of Crop Yields in India to

Quantifying the Benefits of Coordinated Actuated Traffic ... · FINAL CONTRACT REPORT QUANTIFYING THE BENEFITS OF COORDINATED ACTUATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS: A CASE STUDY Byungkyu

Quantifying Affect

Quantifying Urban Agriculture: A Case Study from Baltimore · 2017-12-04 · Quantifying Urban Agriculture: A Case Study from Baltimore ... • Minimum 36-square-foot area* of growing

Quantifying Park & Ride Demand Using LEHD OD Data and Case Study Analysis

Quantifying sustainable control of inventory systems … · Quantifying sustainable control of inventory systems ... as in the case with dairy products, ... Another study on multi-echelon

Asset Management Fixed Income Mastering negative yields ... · Mastering negative yields and positive ... bond yields must go deeper into negative territory. Current level. ... Yields

CASE STUDY E-COMMERCE SEO STRATEGY YIELDS 64% … · CASE STUDY E-COMMERCE SEO STRATEGY YIELDS 64% INCREASE IN ORGANIC REVENUE ©2017 Seer Interactive • p2 ... shot at ranking well,

QUANTIFYING CREEPY

Quantifying and Improving the Efficiency of Hardware-based ... · Second, training a supervised HMD using Sherlock’s diverse malware dataset yields 12.5% better HMDs than past

Quantifying Location Privacy: The Case of Sporadic Location Exposure

A Case Study on Quantifying the Workload of Working Machine Operators by Means of Psychophysiological Measurements

Quantifying mybikerides

Quantifying Reconnection*

Quantifying and Measuring Morphological Complexityclml.uchicago.edu/~max/wccfl-slides.pdfMotivation Quantifying Complexity Measuring Complexity: Morphology Measurements Summary Quantifying

Quantifying fair payment after outsourcing – a case studyx/sps/sps.pdf · 2015. 7. 16. · Quantifying fair payment after outsourcing – a case study Laurenz Eveleens, Peter Kampstra*,†

How to half N-losses, improve N-efficiencies and maintain yields? The Danish Case

LEAN CASE STUDY -4 Day Kaizen Event yields $2,000,000 in

Quantifying THe Conservation value OF Plantation forests ... · matrices has been shown to maintain or enhance crop yields compared to monoculture plantations (Reed et al. 2017)

Case Study: Exelon's Innovative CA PPM Upgrade Yields Valuable Outcomes for Its Utilities

Quantifying Outreach

Impact of Improved Farm Technologies on Yields: The Case ... · Impact of Improved Farm Technologies on Yields: The Case of Improved Maize ... Despite this, adoption rates of improved

Quantifying the Hidden Benefits of High-Performance Building · Quantifying the Hidden Benefits of High-Performance Building ... Example case study ... A Herman-Miller case study

A Case for Silicon Fertilization to Improve Crop Yields in Tropical … · 2017-08-25 · A Case for Silicon Fertilization to Improve Crop Yields ... Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India,

Quantifying Extinctions