Friday Crop Report on a Thursday!

[burnt]

When I delivered IP soys at the elevator 2 years ago the grader asked me if the beans were pre-harvested with glyph. I asked if there was a premium for them if not sprayed.

Her reply was poorly worded - "Not for you" she said. So it was pretty obvious that they were getting paid extra at that time.

Now there is a premium for un-sprayed soybeans from that company - I think 25 cents.

The production and handling paper trail has become quite significant but it certainly rewards those who will do it.

[SASKFARMER3]

I personally think farmers won’t see any benefit. We will be down graded thanks to sprouting if it rains on the swaths that I know. Or if a new super desiccate is developed it will cost me a arm and a leg.

He farmer never wins

[dmlfarmer]

Well thanks for that info I have been using this product since 1981.

Seeds are firm in 90% of the field 5% greener and 5% lime.

So again thanks for your info

Wow, to admit you have been using Roundup to preharvest since 1981. Fact is, it was not registered for preharvest use in Canada until June 1992!

You post a picture of a ripe field and claim this is the stage you spray yet I remember a year ago you posting a picture of preharvesting and you were called on how green the field was.

You claim 90% of the seeds are firm. So 10% of the seeds are likely uptaking glyphosate and you think this is okay given the public outcry against glyphosate residues.

I am no expert but I can read a label, I do hear the consumer outcry, and I do not want to lose the use of glyphosate. And it angers me to no end to hear your whining economic justification of having to use glyphosate off label yet spend all winter telling us of your holidaying and US homes that most consumers can not even dream of.

And I have no doubt when we see increased regulation of glyphosate you will blame Liberals and Trudeau when in fact it is bad management of glyphosate by farmers like yourself that will be the real cause.

[SASKFARMER3]

Oh cry me a river!

Boo hoo

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And I still maintain that we shouldn't be having this debate in public and on a public forum, especially those who openly admit to doing things off label. All we are doing is providing additional ammunition to those anti-everything types, and informing our consumers that the practice exists. I've said it before, most consumers refuse to believe that we would actually do this, and yet some insist on advertising the practice all over the internet? Once we lose the trust of our consumers, we may never win it back, and be regulated into oblivion at the same time.

This debate should be had very quietly and behind closed doors. And the outcome has to be what the consumer would want, regardless of science or labels.

[SASKFARMER3]

Why hide facts so stupid consumers keep being fed billshit by groups out to destroy agriculture.

Post your organic neighbours shit show and let joe public see how food shortages will happen if we all have to grow nothing.

The consumer needs education.

Our schools teach shit to students.

Hell my son got kicked out of a class last year in Regina because a teacher was teaching kids how bad modern farming was and peace and love and sing will produce crops. Safeway will always have food.

He called her bullshit and was sent to the office.

Again are morons running the show not science.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why hide facts so stupid consumers keep being fed billshit by groups out to destroy agriculture.



Again are morons running the show not science.

And that is exactly why we shouldn't be trying to win this battle in public with science. They don't care, emotion wins over science every time. Never argue with a fool, they will drag you down and beat you with experience.

Try asking your city neighbors about the practice, I'll guarantee that most of them will be blissfully unaware that this practice takes place at all, and will probably refuse to believe it, knowing how demonized glyphosate has become, it is unthinkable to most consumers that we would do this to their food.

We run the real possibility of losing complete use of glyphosate, along with the ability to no-till, and continuous crop thanks to these "moron" and in spite of science. Why not voluntarily give up the most grievous and least vital uses of this vital product proactively before we are forced into something much more draconian and anti-science.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Between the three most recent threads on this topic, there are close to 5000 views already. Are all of those views just the same handful of farmer posters checking in again and again, or are random google searchers happening upon this topic in their quest to learn more about the uses and potential harms of glyphosate?

[Guest]

And I still maintain that we shouldn't be having this debate in public and on a public forum, especially those who openly admit to doing things off label. All we are doing is providing additional ammunition to those anti-everything types, and informing our consumers that the practice exists. I've said it before, most consumers refuse to believe that we would actually do this, and yet some insist on advertising the practice all over the internet? Once we lose the trust of our consumers, we may never win it back, and be regulated into oblivion at the same time.

This debate should be had very quietly and behind closed doors. And the outcome has to be what the consumer would want, regardless of science or labels.

Couuldnt agree more af5

[biglentil]

Couuldnt agree more af5

The cats out of the bag, but agree. Why add gas to the fire? Was reading a similar thread on combine forum. A guy was arguing that if sprayed early on cereals the plant has more time to metabolize the glypho. Like hello mcfly!