Dave and Lisa Lubben Profile
by Jenny Kendall, Earlham
White Oak Farm
Dave and Lisa Lubben, Monticello
Southeast Iowa, PFI District 5
- 1200 acres, half row crops, remainder in alfalfa hay or bromegrass pasture
- 1996 PFI President
- Corn and soybeans, intensive rotational grazing for 100 stock cows, 280-head finishing feedlot.
Background
Dave Lubben believes that attending to details, keeping meticulous records, and staying on top of marketing information are key to farm profitability.
Dave does more than maintain information, however. He keeps current with the latest in production practices through reading journals, accessing computer data banks, and talking with financial advisors. In 1982, Dave started a farmer marketing club to develop strategies for marketing grain and livestock that is currently meeting six times a year.
Family farming is a continual learning process for Dave. Each year, he writes a business plan and does a performance evaluation to find the strengths and weaknesses in the Lubben operation. Cost of production by enterprise, including family living costs are calculated, along with financial ratios to monitor the financial health of the farm. He also develops a written marketing plan for selling grain and livestock.
Always alert to improved production practices, Dave has discovered that reported results conflict with each other. He also knows that variability in production practices and field conditions affect test results.
"I got started doing research trials by testing biological products. I would read literature that claimed to produce a 10% increase in yield. I read an article by Dick Thompson on how to do on-farm research plots so I contacted my local extension agent and said let's try it. My main objective is to run experimental test plots over a period of years to find out what the agronomic and economic benefits are for our farm."
For example, in 1991, Dave conducted a trial to compare yield and economic results when using the agricultural crop additive ACA (ammonium zinc acetate) in addition to his normal use of 28% nitrogen. That trial did not yield economic or agronomic benefits for his operation.
Says Dave, "We like to try and solve biological problems with biological solutions. Say I have a hardpan in a field. I can either buy heavy metal and rip the hardpan out, or I can plant alfalfa and let nature help me. It takes time, patience, and the willingness to learn from nature."
On-farm Trials In past years, Dave has been particularly interested in comparing no-till methods to conventional tillage for both corn and soybeans. (See Table 4)
Comparing Use of Seed Firmer In 1995, Dave compared the use of a seed firmer to not using a seed firmer on his no-till corn. Using a John Deere 8-row corn planter, he planted 4 rows with the plastic seed firmer attachment, and 4 rows without. With 6 replicates (the minimum typically recommended for on-farm research trials), he observed a 6.4 bushel/acre (non-statistically significant at .05) decrease in yield in the plot treatments that had the seed firmer.
This Year's On-Farm Research Dave has two trials and a demonstration underway for this year. "We are evaluating a plastic seed firming device on our corn planter. Our objective is to determine if firming the seed increases germination and consequently yield." The other research trial underway is comparing Bt corn to non-Bt corn to determine if there is an economic and agronomic benefit to using corn with the Bt gene.
Dave also has a demonstration for this year using berseem clover in a corn field he plans to chop for silage. (A demonstration differs from a research trial, as there are no statistical comparisons being made.) "After the last cultivation, I broadcast 7 lbs. of berseem clover over the top of the corn and the rain worked it in. After we chop the corn for silage, we'll let the berseem grow for a month then graze it. We continue to try and improve our grazing system with new forages and by adding a water system. "
Impact of Sustainable Farming It hasn't been easy to define exactly what sustainable farming means. Says Dave, "What is the alternative to sustainable farming - unsustainable farming? We look at sustainable farming as a goal and as a learning process that we evaluate each year. I ask myself, ‘What farming practices do I do that are sustainable and what are not?' There is no judge who comes around and rates you. I like to visit other farms and see what they are doing that would be appropriate for my farm and my philosophy."
"I interpret sustainable farming as farming that achieves a reasonable standard of living, resulting in a farm that is a healthy place to raise our family. Sustainable farming enables us to enhance the quality of life, promote environmental stewardship, and become contributing members of our local community."
"For example, management intensive grazing has had a huge impact on our farm and for our family. We have taken an overgrazed conventionally-managed pasture and greatly improved the forage diversity, cow condition, stream bank stabilization, and farmer attitude. I have two daughters and I want to do things with them that don't require heavy metal and pesticides. Management intensive grazing allows me to do just that."
Dave encourages other farmers to do research on their own farms. He suggests that producers run experimental test plots over a period of years to find agronomic and economic benefits that will work for them. (See On-Farm Research Guide for guidelines developed by PFI for performing on-farm research trials.)
"We do on-farm research and demonstrations with other farmers and ag scientists to develop farming systems that are ecologically sound, profitable, and good for families and our local community."
Lubben No-Till Trial Results (1992)
Drilled Soybeans
- no-till plots reduced soil erosion
- no-till cost $8 more per acre than conventional
- no-till yield was 42.8 bu/ac compared to 41.4 bu/ac for conventional, (not statistically significant)
- no-till improved ease in combining
- Corn
- no-till cost $8 less per acre than conventional
- no observed agronomic differences among plots
- no-till yield 150.6 bu/ac compared to 149.6 bu/ac (not statistically significant)
Soybeans The previous crop for all plots was corn. The no-till program consisted of using a burndown herbicide for early weed control. Soybeans were drilled on 8-inch row spacing with a John Deere 515 drill with a Yetter coulter cart. Conventional tillage consisted of two diskings for early weed control and John Deere 8-row 36-inch plateless planter and one cultivation. The 15-ft-wide by 500-ft-long plots were harvested in mid-October. The herbicide program consisted of 9 oz Assure II, 1/4 oz Pinnacle and 1/4 oz Classic.
No-Till Soybean Details and Cost Analysis
|
No-Till 20 oz. Roundup 11.60 Herbicide program 25.47 |
Conventional 2 diskings 12.00 Herbicide program 25.47 |
Corn This was the first year of no-till for this field. the previous crop was soybeans. The no-till program consists of no-tilling into soybean stubble with a pre-emerge herbicide and one cultivation. The conventional tillage program consists of one pass with a disk, pre-emerge herbicide, and one cultivation.
|
No-Till Program Planted May 3 10.00 |
Conventional Program 1 disking 8.00 Cultivation 5.00 |