I've had a few people offer their condolences about our failed winter wheat.  Yes, it is very disappointing to lose the winter wheat, especially when planting is already so far behind.  We are not done planting our wheat yet, and having to replant those 240 acres means we added another day to our already far behind planting schedule.  

It can be difficult to grow winter wheat this far north (40 miles south of Canada), and if you do, you are supposed to seed it directly into canola or flax stubble so it catches the snow and gets insulated during the cold winter.  A good blanket of snow will help avoid winter kill. 

But we don't follow any of the agronomic advice.  Instead, we seed our winter wheat after navy beans, and navy beans don't leave much residue.  The field is almost black when we seed the winter wheat, with very little residue, and nothing to catch the snow except the short little winter wheat seedlings.  Since navy bean harvest can run into October, we often seed later than the recommended seeding date as well, so the seedlings can be quite tiny.  So we seed our winter wheat later than we should, and we seed it into fields with no stubble.  

Our winter wheat is never supposed to survive, but we seed it for conservation purposes.  Since navy beans leave very little residue, the field is at risk for erosion.  When the winds begin to blow in the spring, we don't want a dust storm on our field.  Keeping that top soil in the field is so important, and that is why we plant the winter wheat.  If it survives the winter, and we get to harvest it the next year, that's a bonus.  

We've been very lucky to have such success growing winter wheat.  At first we were shocked when it did survive the winter and then we kind of got comfortable and assumed it would always survive.  That is not the case and 2013 reminded us that the primary purpose of the winter wheat is conservation, and the bonus is profitability.  This year we cannot collect the bonus. 

We had a horrible dust storm last week, and the winter wheat did help keep our top soil in place.  Most of the wheat was dead, but imagine dead grass in your yard.  The dead wheat still provided a layer of protection, and helped minimize the amount of top soil that was blowing.

Not all of our fields are susceptible to blowing, but winter wheat has been great for some light and sandy fields.  It's hard to drag out the airseeder in the fall, and find time to get the crop planted when you're harvesting sugar beets, and working on fall tillage, but somehow it gets done, and in the spring you are grateful.  I hope we can harvest winter wheat in 2014. 

As for crop insurance, we cannot insure winter wheat.  Even federal crop insurance knows winter wheat isn't supposed to survive in our area.  Instead, they send an adjustor in the spring, and if the winter wheat stand looks adequate, we can insure that field as spring wheat.   This year the adjustor estimated our field at 4 bushels to the acre, and uninsurable.  We hope for a 60 bu/a minimum, so there was no question as to whether or not the field should be destroyed.  There was nothing there, so at least it was an easy decision.  

Destroying our winter wheat is disappointing but not devastating.  Now we just need to focus on finishing our planting.  Wheat, soybeans and navy beans remain, and the calendar days are slipping by quickly.  

Activist groups are a sore subject with me.  Just what are their goals, and what do they do with donations?  I appreciate action more than talk, and activist groups don't always fit that profile.  You've probably heard of LiveStrong, the Lance Armstrong foundation.  Did you know the purpose of LiveStrong is cancer awareness and education?  The purpose was never to find a cure for cancer, and the foundation was quite clear about that.  Every time you bought a yellow bracelet or shirt, you are helping to raise money for cancer education and awareness, but not a cure.  Their website is quite upfront with that information, but I was still surprised when I found out.  Assisting cancer patients and educating the public is a good cause, but I want a cure.  

The Humane Society of the United States may sound like the local shelter where we just got our new puppy, and their website includes "pets and shelters" and "animal rescue and care" on their list of 4 areas of work, but they spend over twice as much money on advocacy and public policy than they do on cruelty prevention programs.  Their website and annual report are full of pictures of cute puppies and kitties, but the majority of their budget goes towards lawyers and lobbyists in suits.  If you want to save a dog or cat, send your money to your local animal shelter.  If you want to save a lobbyist in a suit, send your donation to HSUS.  They are an organization of talk, not of action.      

So I was reassured when I started looking into The Nature Conservancy.  I have admired The Nature Conservancy from afar, impressed with their work on the Glacial Ridge project in Northwest Minnesota.  They bought more than 24,000 acres, some of it farmland, and have converted it to native prairie.  It was somewhat controversial among farmers in Northwest Minnesota, but I think nearly everyone has grown to appreciate their work.  If you donate to the Nature Conservancy, the money is going directly to conservation activities and land purchases and easements.  It's an organization of actions, not words.  That impresses me.  

I became even more impressed when I read an editorial given by the President and CEO of the Nature Conservancy, Mark Tercek.  He's a vegan, and head of one of the largest conservation organizations in the U.S., but I was so impressed with his common sense approach.  I don't want to paraphrase his article, but I do think it's a worthwhile read for every farmer, and actually anyone who eats.

Farmers are the original environmentalists.  We've been working to take care of the land, even before it was mainstream.  I am happy to have found an environmentalist that is working to better the world, and not just create hype and hysteria.  I guess I appreciate it because farmers are people of action.  We don't spend our days on news networks trying to scare people over potential food shortages.  Instead, we spend our days working in the fields, trying to make sure those shortages never occur.  

Last winter while attending an extension seminar on soybean production, I took a look at the room full of farmers, probably 200 of them, and realized how much work farmers do trying to produce more with less.  This group of farmers was spending their entire day listening to the latest research on disease, fertilization, row spacing, all areas of soybean production.  How can we get one more bushel from our fields, and how can we do it with fewer inputs?  Tomorrow it's a wheat production meeting, or corn, but the education, and improvements in production, never end.  If you want to keep eating, we'll keep feeding you.  

Take a few minutes and read the article from Mark Tercek.  I think you'll enjoy it. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-tercek/a-new-diet-for-the-planet_b_3189719.html?utm_hp_ref=tw?show_comment_id=249768954#comment_249768954

We got the backhoe and dug the remaining pieces of equipment out of snowbanks.  We're almost ready to go, but Mother Nature has different plans for us.  Patience, patience, patience is the name of the game. 

The biggest problem when it gets this late for planting is the rush.  It's like waiting until Christmas Eve to do your Christmas shopping.  You end up at the mall with all the other procrastinators, and come home crabby after failing to find the perfect present.  Instead, we push to get everything done, working long hours and minor breakdowns have major implications.  You would be well advised to avoid all farmers during the month of May.  We're either crabby because we're not in the field, or crabby because we are, and now we're short of sleep and patience. 

I visited with a banker this week, and he asked me if I thought farmers were prepared to deal with lower yields.  We've had a few good years, and it is easy to forget the years with mediocre yields.  Farmers do have crop insurance, but it covers you in a disaster.  Most farmers buy insurance that covers them if yields are below 65% to 75% of a normal yield.  Take away 25% to 35% of your income for the year, and think about how you would handle it.  It is not a disaster, but it certain causes some serious pinches. 

A headline from this morning's newspaper read "Farmers got too much aid in drought, report says."  Interesting.  Drought affected many farmers last summer, and they collected crop insurance, but that insurance helped provide them with 65% to 75% of their normal income.  You can purchase up to 85% crop insurance, but it is quite costly, and few farmers are willing to spend that much on insurance.  It should be noted that the "report" quoted in the article was written by a lobbying organization that is anti-farming.  I wouldn't exactly call that non-biased. 

It's too early for me to begin thinking about crop insurance.  We had to purchase it by March 15, so it's not like we can make changes.  And I do not plan to collect crop insurance this year.  I have confidence Mother Nature will get back on track, and give us spring weather, and soon! 

On a positive note, we do have 240 acres of winter wheat planted.  Oh sure it was planted last fall, but still.  We're 240 acres ahead of our neighbors.  Ha!