11/13 Review

[rickhitchcock]

From Ray Massey

g01209 Selecting Cover Crop Seeding Machinery Guide.pdf

Yield

The input visualization is close but needs a few suggested word changes. The calculations behind the scene need revision.

• [x] Change “select the per acre yield estimate….” to “Select the change in yields you expect from adoption of cover crops.”
• [x] Delete the “$” from in front of the “enter my own estimates” input box and put “bushels/acre” behind that same input box.
• [x] The number I enter into “Enter my own yield estimate,” currently shows up in the Summary table exactly as I typed it in and in the proper location (Costs for negative number, Benefits for positive number). However, it should also be multiplied by the “commodity price.” If I enter -2 this box and commodity corn price is $4.88, the Summary table should show a red $9.76 in the Costs section. If I enter 3 in this box and commodity corn price is $4.88, the Summary table should show a black $14.64 in the Benefits section.

When “no change in yield estimates” or “Use cover crop adjusted yield estimates from the table above” are chosen, the model works appropriately.

Revenue:

This looks good.

• [x] One small change if time allows is to change “Erosion” under the Decrease in Cost section to “Erosion Control.”

Resources

• [x] Nothing currently resides there. If we are going to call this Version 1 we either need something there or remove the tab from visibility until something does reside there. I have attached an Extension guide on Cover Crop Planting Equipment Selection that can be attached as the first Resource. If you choose to use this as a first resource rather than hide the tab, I suggest deleting all the existing bulleted words. After the introductory paragraph, we would have a single “Resource” link to this guide.

Regarding the grazing question:

I agree that it currently is likely to be misunderstood. The unit (currently labeled “hours per acre” and really is “hours/acre/season”) is possibly what will cause the confusion. Putting the time period in the label is important? Since we already have the acres in the field, it would probably be best to change the unit to “hours/field/season” to allow the user to give an estimate of how many hours will be used for grazing. The second challenge is “additional” hours/acre. We are asking the user to think through how many hours they currently use and how many they think they will use and do the subtraction before they can enter a value. Lots of head math without any real guidance. Other than add “per season” into the unit designation, nothing has to be done. I give some suggestions below that probably should not be done before Monday afternoon (in case it creates a error that looks worse than the current potential for misunderstanding on the part of the user). Suggestion to be added after Monday’s meeting and after Alan gives his opinion:

• [x] Add a row with an input box with the label “Current hours per season used in feeding livestock.”
• [x] Add another row with an input box labelled “Hours per season to graze and feed livestock.”
• [x] Turn the current row into an output that reports “additional hours per acre per season required for grazing livestock.” It would subtract the first added row from the second added row and divide by the total number of acres. Given the current size of the table, we probably have enough room on that row to report “hours/acre” and “$/acre” both as outputs.

I hope this helps. Look forward to seeing you this afternoon. If Alan wants to take the lead on demonstrating the program this afternoon, that would be great. He is more polished than I as a presenter. However, if he prefers not to take the lead, I will be ready to jump in and demonstrate its capabilities.

[boscosylvester-john]

Marking Resources module related updates as completed here as they are mentioned in more detail in this issue https://github.com/precision-sustainable-ag/dst-econ/issues/152