A solution ??

[grassfarmer]

For those despairing in the Canola thread. Gives cause for thought anyway - "....Nitrogen, for instance, is a major driver of yield, but it’s relatively inefficient, with only five to 25 per cent of applied nitrogen being used by crops."

[URL="http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2016/07/25/healthy-soil-can-boost-your-bottom-line/"]http://http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2016/07/25/healthy-soil-can-boost-your-bottom-line/[/URL]

[farmaholic]

I would have to read the article again. But it makes you wonder of they are making reference to the crops actual uptake and removal of nutrients. What isn't removed(grain or straw) off the field in the uptake side is returned to the soil over time....to become available later.

So in essence, they are probably right, a lower percentage of what is applied is actually used(removed)... but no doubt there are loses as well.

Soil appears to be much healthier than the old half and half days. Is it out of balance?

I bet intense fruit and vegetable farming is even more reliant on pesticides than large scale commodity agriculture....maybe grains are an easier target than the chastisers beloved fruits and vegetables. You can always eat organic.

[stonepicker]

Don't believe everything you read.

[farmaholic]

Just trying help them justify the statement with a common sense reason why they may be saying not all the fertilizer applied is used.

With a hint of sarcasm.

[ajl]

Applied nitrogen has a very high use efficiency in western Canada. You can always tell where you have a plugged run on a mid row bander. Crop response to nitrogen is readily apparent. People who suggest a 25% use efficiency are full of it.

[grassfarmer]

Applied nitrogen has a very high use efficiency in western Canada. You can always tell where you have a plugged run on a mid row bander. Crop response to nitrogen is readily apparent. People who suggest a 25% use efficiency are full of it.

So is that peer reviewed science or anecdotal evidence lol ?

Happy to be losing top soil? at the rate of one to two tonnes for every tonne of grain produced?
“If we measure success only by yield, we’re telling the wrong story.”

Increasing soil health while reducing inputs
“can buffer excess water, while having reductions in pests, weeds, and disease.”

By investing in soil health, not just inputs, producers can boost their bottom line and their productivity, while increasing the long-term resilience of their land, said Masters.

Guess no one's interested though, better to stick with the paradigm that by your own admission isn't working.

[farming101]

I wonder if Masters has met Solari?

[URL="http://farmforum.ca/article/top-winter-wheat-yields-from-the-bottom-of-the-earth/"]http://farmforum.ca/article/top-winter-wheat-yields-from-the-bottom-of-the-earth/[/URL]

[stonepicker]

grassfarmer. Losing one or two tonnes of topsoil for every tonne of grain produced? Where is it going? The land is in far better shape now than 50 years ago. As far as peer reviewed being the only thing you feel you can believe, i'm sure when scientists thought the earth was flat, that there wasn't one peer reviewed article for the few scientists that thought the earth was round. Sort of reminds me of man-made global warming today.

[grassfarmer]

grassfarmer. Losing one or two tonnes of topsoil for every tonne of grain produced? Where is it going?

Wind and water erosion I'd assume.

The land is in far better shape now than 50 years ago.

Perhaps there is a less obvious loss of topsoil since summer fallow was abandoned but if there is still loss, and someone finds a way to reduce that loss, with the bonus that you could potentially reduce your purchased inputs and that it would also improve the overall resilience of your soils and crops you'd have to be interested.....right?

As far as peer reviewed being the only thing you feel you can believe......

I agree with you, it was a tongue in cheek remark aimed at those who cite the need for peer reviewed science on other topics like the damage done by glyphosate, neonicitinoids etc.