Why Three Fields?
The Farmland Health Check-Up is built on a simple but powerful diagnostic principle: benchmarking. By comparing one high-performing field against two underperforming fields on the same farm, the FHCU isolates the specific soil, drainage, and management factors that explain yield differences.
Key Takeaway: Instead of asking "Are my yields good?" the question becomes "Why does this field underperform that one?" — and the answer is always specific, measurable, and actionable.
How Fields Are Selected
Field 1 — Your Best Field (Benchmark)
The field that consistently produces your highest yields. This field serves as the baseline against which the other two are compared.
Field 2 — An Underperforming Field
A field that consistently yields below your best, has recurring problems, or doesn't respond to inputs the way you'd expect.
Field 3 — Another Underperforming Field
Ideally with different issues (e.g., one with drainage issues and one with erosion) to provide a broader diagnostic picture.
The fields don't need to be adjacent or even on the same soil type. Comparing fields across different soil types can reveal important management × soil type interactions. Learn how the full process works.
The Diagnostic Power of Comparison
Consider this example from an Oxford County farm:
Home Field (Benchmark)
105 acres, Crsil loam, 5-year average wheat yield 131 bu/ac (county avg: 94.1 bu/ac). Tile drained at 10 m spacing. SOM 4.2%. No compaction detected. 4-crop rotation including red clover.
Hutchinson Field (Underperforming)
109 acres, heavy clay, 5-year avg corn yield 170 vs. 220 bu/ac on best field. Tile at 18 m spacing (1978). SOM 3.1%. Compaction at 15 cm (380 psi). Corn-soybean rotation only.
River Field (Underperforming)
82 acres, clay loam, significant slope. Active water erosion on upper slopes. Eroded knolls with SOM below 2%. Yield on knolls approximately 60% of field average.
Clear Diagnosis
This comparison immediately identifies the yield-limiting factors: tile spacing and compaction on the Hutchinson field; erosion and topsoil loss on the River field. The recommendations are specific and prioritized.
Variability Analysis Within Fields
The FHCU also examines variability within fields. Many yield-limiting factors create spatial patterns:
-
Headland compaction — Equipment turning areas receive 5–10× more traffic, creating severe compaction zones
-
Drainage variability — Yield map patterns that follow tile lines suggest drainage adequacy issues between laterals
-
Slope position effects — Upper slope positions yielding 30–50% less indicate tillage erosion damage
-
Soil type transitions — Abrupt yield changes following soil type boundaries reveal soil-specific management needs
Practical Farm Examples
Drainage Explains 80% of Yield Gap
Two fields on the same soil type, same rotation. One yields 200 bu/ac, the other 160. The difference: 10 m vs 18 m tile spacing. Expected response from retiling: 30–40 bu/ac, payback in 6–8 years.
Compaction from Manure Application
Field closest to barnyard consistently underperforms. Severe compaction at 20–30 cm from heavy tanker traffic on wet soil. SOM is actually higher (from manure) — but compaction negates the benefit.
Rotation Diversity Drives the Difference
One field in a 4-crop rotation consistently outyields two fields in continuous corn-soybean by 20–30 bu/ac. Higher SOM (4.1% vs 3.2%), better aggregate stability, more earthworm activity.
From Diagnosis to Action
The 3-field comparison culminates in a prioritized action plan for each underperforming field. Recommendations are ranked by expected yield impact and cost-effectiveness. The FHCU also identifies connections to Ontario cost-share programs that can help fund recommended improvements. See the full value and ROI analysis.
