In the short-term, especially when cash reserves are low, the cost to plant and manage a crop to the point where the season becomes clearer (eg. 1-2 months after sowing) is a source of risk – how much must be borrowed to plant each hectare? This consists of chemical costs since the last harvest, fertiliser, fuel, and seed, and has been calculated using 2009 prices (identical for all paddocks). Fuel use has been estimated for the range of operations
At Culgoa the cost to crop has been higher in the No Till paddock (Figure 38a). This has been caused by higher expenditure on fertiliser and chemicals. Over the three years, expenditure on fertiliser has reduced to match the poor seasons. This has reduced cost to crop by $30/ha. In the Till paddock, cost to crop has been lower or similar, apart from slightly more spent on fuel.
At Donald the cost to crop (Figure 38b) has been similar for the No Till paddock (on a continuous rotation) and the Till paddock (which includes the cost of a preceding fallow). The cost of the vetch hay crop in 2008 (excludes costs of making hay) was relatively low. The Till paddock has had higher fertiliser and seed costs, especially in 2006.
Figure 38. The cash cost (chemical, fertiliser, fuel and seed) to crop at Culgoa (a) and Donald (b) focus paddocks.
At Minyip, seed costs for pulse crops have kept the cost to crop quite high (Figure 39a), despite fertiliser not being used on pulse crops and the use of wide row spacing and band spraying in the 2007 No Till Chickpea crop. For cereal crops, fertiliser has been the main cost in both Till and No Till paddocks. Herbicide costs have been low. Despite using low-draft wide-row sowing in the 2007 crop, fuel costs for Till and No Till are similar because more fuel is used in spraying the No Till crop. Note that at Minyip the ‘Till’ seeding system is usually direct-drill.
At Patchewollock, fertiliser costs especially were high for the No Till paddock while still using granular fertiliser (Figure 39b). In subsequent years, the cost of fertiliser has been greatly reduced using lower rates in fluid form. Patchewollock is another paddock where the Till farmer has adopted No-Till from 2007 on, and hence fuel costs have been relatively low.
Figure 39. The cash cost (chemical, fertiliser, fuel and seed) to crop at Minyip (a) and Patchewollock (b) focus paddocks.
The cost to crop was relatively high in the Sea Lake No Till paddock (Figure 40a), with high herbicide costs partly because of good summer rain, and partly because of robust fallow herbicide rates (1.5 – 2.0 l/ha Glyphosate 450). In this analysis foliar zinc sprays are also included as a ‘chemical’. Fertiliser costs were also relatively high. The cost to crop has been similar or less for cereals in the Till paddock, including the costs of preceding fallows in 2008, but not fallow sprays or operations in 2005.
Figure 40. The cash cost (chemical, fertiliser, fuel and seed) to crop at Sea Lake (a) and Yaapeet (b) focus paddocks.