RP92-217 No. 19 Cost of Grain Storage

Grain marketing decisions are among the toughest the farm owner/operator or manager must make. Grain producers store grain to speculate on receiving higher prices, earn a return above storage costs, or to take advantage of government programs. Prices must increase enough to cover the additional costs, or forward contract prices must exceed current prices by more than the cost of storage in order to justify forward pricing. The gain in prices received can come from both changes in price level and changes in basis. This research publication discusses all the areas of the cost of grain storage.

Grain Storage Costs and Rental Rates

Trends in Grain Storage - Commercial grain storage eliminates the need to monitor grain conditions and, hence, offers the peace of mind that unsold grain will remain in condition. There may be a cost trade-off between this reduced storage risk and the cost of on-farm storage.

Yield potential and resource-use efficiency of maize systems in the western U.S. Corn Belt

Maize demand for food, livestock feed, and biofuel is expected to increase substantially. The Western U.S. Corn Belt accounts for 23% of U.S. maize production, and irrigated maize accounts for 43 and 58% of maize land area and total production, respectively, in this region. The most sensitive parameters (yield potential [YP], water-limited yield potential [YP-W], yield gap between actual yield and YP, and resource-use efficiency) governing performance of maize systems in the region are lacking. A simulation model was used to quantify YP under irrigated and rainfed conditions based on weather data, soil properties, and crop management at 18 locations. In a separate study, 5-year soil water data measured in central Nebraska were used to analyze soil water recharge during the non-growing season because soil water content at sowing is a critical component of water supply available for summer crops. On-farm data, including yield, irrigation, and nitrogen (N) rate for 777 field-years, was used to quantify size of yield gaps and evaluate resource-use efficiency. Simulated average YP and YP-W were 14.4 and 8.3 Mg ha-1, respectively. Geospatial variation of YP was associated with solar radiation and temperature during post-anthesis phase while variation in water-limited yield was linked to the longitudinal variation in seasonal rainfall and evaporative demand. Analysis of soil water recharge indicates that 80% of variation in soil water content at sowing can be explained by precipitation during non-growing season and residual soil water at end of previous growing season. A linear relationship between YP-W and water supply (slope: 19.3 kg ha-1 mm-1; x-intercept: 100 mm) can be used as a benchmark to diagnose and improve farmer’s water productivity (WP; kg grain per unit of water supply). Evaluation of data from farmer’s fields provides proof-of-concept and helps identify management constraints to high levels of productivity and resource-use efficiency. On average, actual yields of irrigated maize systems were 11% below YP. WP and N-fertilizer use efficiency (NUE) were high despite application of large amounts of irrigation water and N fertilizer (14 kg grain mm-1 water supply and 71 kg grain kg-1 N fertilizer). While there is limited scope for substantial increases in actual average yields, WP and NUE can be further increased by: (1) switching surface to pivot systems, (2) using conservation instead of conventional tillage systems in soybean-maize rotations, (3) implementation of irrigation schedules based on crop water requirements, and (4) better N fertilizer management.

The NEBLINE, October 1998

Contents: Character Counts! for everyone Growing hardy bulbs Tree planting snafus Timely care of hardy chrysantheums Mole, mole, go away Termite control options: baits vs. barriers? Celebrate America Recycles Day Household hazardous waste collection: November 7 It's time for your annual “pest-proof” check-up Removing skunk odor Temporary/emergency grain storage options Control leafy spurge Fall clean-up of warm-season grasses The first frost, the last hurrah Pasture weed control What is this thing called winter desiccation? Dormant planting grasses and legumes Finding facts about vegetables and fruits Healthy Eating: No-Crust Pumpkin Pie Focus on Food Preparing for the winter food olympics! Family & Community Education News FCE: Jean's Journal Household Hints Furniture workshop AARP offers 55 Alive—Mature Driver Course Caring for athletic uniforms Halloween safety 4-H Bulletin Board Character Counts! Super Day Camps 4-H CAN Fight Hunger Food Campaign 4-H Shooting Sports meeting Holiday gifts needed 4-H Volunteer Forum Make a Difference Day Engineering and Technology 4-H Club Put us to work, please! Lancaster County Born and Raised beef SERIES fun America Recycles Day Livestock judging teams excel at state Lemke and Nisley place University of Nebraska Speakers Bureau announced Public notice Community Resource Directory available E.N. Thompson Forum on World Issues

Stochastic Partial Budgeting: A New Look at an Old Tool

Farm business managers are constantly making adjustments in their businesses for smoother operations and profitability. Many times, these choices involve actions to enhance the financial return of the farm business; while other times these decisions are made out of necessity to minimize the effects of unfavorable conditions or events such as drought or changes in the market conditions. Some of these decisions are relatively simple, requiring making choices among alternatives within an enterprise; while others are complex involving a total overhaul of the business and its enterprises. Alternative choices within an individual enterprise can have a differential impact on farm profitability. Therefore, making the best decision may make the difference between profit or loss for that enterprise. Partial budgeting is very useful in making such changes within an enterprise of a farm.