How we could actually cut fertilizer and not cut production.

[WiltonRanch]

No one has said to reduce fertilizer but they DID say to reduce Emission from fert by 30 per cent.

there are products now that stabilize nitrogen to prevent gassing of nitrous oxide. which by the way you can lose 30% or more by broadcasting at the Wrong time or putting in the ground at a Shallow depth.

intercropping where a pulse crop gives produced N to companion oilseed crop- works well but you Wont see any fertilizer companies sponsoring any Research on this

I’ve followed companion crops like peola and the like for years because I’d like to incorporate peas into my crop mix. I suppose we could do a lot more research for sure and figure simply just the best seeding rates for conditions and suitable varieties. Definitely worth it. I’m still skeptical about the legume nitrogen being available for the companion oilseed. Definitely needs research there to prove or disprove that. More at play than the nitrogen fixation.

[jazz]

intercropping where a pulse crop gives produced N to companion oilseed crop- works well but you Wont see any fertilizer companies sponsoring any Research on this

Have you ever tried an intercrop. We have by accident. Clearfield canola in the lentils. They matured 3w apart. The running the flex on the ground with the reels low, just shattered the canola so big losses.

And then we had to stop and clean them right away because we didnt want that little bit of canola sweating off and heating a bin of lentils. Last thing you want to do is stop your harvest to clean crop.

Not worth the hassle imo.

[shtferbrains]

How about they ban fertilizer use in urban areas. It's all just cosmetic anyways. No food or anything of value is produced. Probably emits a lot of no2 as it is all surface broadcast.

No lawns,parks,golf courses,etc.
No exemptions.
Big polluters applied that way.

Will never get a look as they would get serious push back from their base.
Can't risk the votes.

[jazz]

I used ESN for 2 years. My thoughts were I saw no significant yield bump. I did see a significant cost increase and then I read that ESN leaves behind the little polymer capsules in the ground that never totally degrade. That didn’t sound environmentally friendly to me. I haven’t used it for 2 years. The only discernible benefit I could see was that it did help the fertilizer flow out of the bin.

We were users of ESN for 7 yrs. Until we started finding intact prills from earlier yrs. So we stopped using it. Not going to pay a premium for nutrients I cant guarantee the plants gets when it needs it.

We now broadcast but use nitrolyzer to stabilize. The drill covers it up within a day or 2.

[Hamloc]

No one has said to reduce fertilizer but they DID say to reduce Emission from fert by 30 per cent.

there are products now that stabilize nitrogen to prevent gassing of nitrous oxide. which by the way you can lose 30% or more by broadcasting at the Wrong time or putting in the ground at a Shallow depth.

intercropping where a pulse crop gives produced N to companion oilseed crop- works well but you Wont see any fertilizer companies sponsoring any Research on this

I used ESN for 2 years. My thoughts were I saw no significant yield bump. I did see a significant cost increase and then I read that ESN leaves behind the little polymer capsules in the ground that never totally degrade. That didn’t sound environmentally friendly to me. I haven’t used it for 2 years. The only discernible benefit I could see was that it did help the fertilizer flow out of the bin.

[mustardman]

No one has said to reduce fertilizer but they DID say to reduce Emission from fert by 30 per cent.

there are products now that stabilize nitrogen to prevent gassing of nitrous oxide. which by the way you can lose 30% or more by broadcasting at the Wrong time or putting in the ground at a Shallow depth.

intercropping where a pulse crop gives produced N to companion oilseed crop- works well but you Wont see any fertilizer companies sponsoring any Research on this

[bucket]

Might have to ask Sask govt how the expanding irrigation that they were bragging about last year is going to work with federal fertilizer reduction plan.

The provincial government is so phucked on the irrigation plan.

85% of acres irrigated in saskatchewan are growing dryland crops. And with the weather we are having last 2 years the yields get cut.

People....think. once the pivot goes over the crop goes back to the heat. If you are standing in a 100f heatwave and someone dumps 40f water on you.....think.

If you took every planned and existing acre of irrigation and planted it to a dryland canola crop it wouldn't fill the demand of the crush expansion.

So those crush plants will rely on the dryland acres to fill the demand.

Why not support dryland farmers instead of giving a million dollar per quarter wealth transfer to 400 farmers.

[TASFarms]

Might have to ask Sask govt how the expanding irrigation that they were bragging about last year is going to work with federal fertilizer reduction plan.

[helmsdale]

But... when the end of the world as we know it is somewhere just beyond a couple days past tomorrow, there is nothing that can be considered drastic or in haste. Except those less than politically appetizing options of course. We're not in THAT much trouble... No, we can fiddle around the edges, and convince the general voting population that you can have your cake and eat it to. Hell, this is all going to be net positive to your pocketbook didn't you know?

1) why do we as a country still encourage mass immigration from low carbon intensity jurisdictions to one of the coldest, harshest, and highest carbon intensity places to live on earth?

2) why did we, and why do we continue to, de-industrialize this country and place the production of *nearly everything* to jurisdictions half way around the world then stick it on a boat and bring it back?

3) why do we continue to knee-cap the natural gas industry in this country which could significantly reduce global emissions if we shipped LNG to jurisdictions highly dependant on coal?

There are plenty more politically challenging questions that we refuse to actually discuss in this country or any western country for that matter because we really really need to get elected next time around, and we can't turn the heat up on the pot TOOO quickly. One must slowly bring it to a boil so that we all have a chance to get acclimatized. But what happens when the pot actually starts boiling? But then again, they're certainly trying to do this to prevent the pot (read climate) from boiling us to death!

*May we live in interesting times*

My yields went up when I got out of cows,30 years ago, income too. 1/2 section of sandy pasture, broke up and planted to wheat grossed more than the entire calf crop usually did. We collected chaff too , seeded green feed, baled ditches. Cows =Lots of work , little money.
I thought the whole theory was that big healthy plants and trees extracted CO2 from air and sequestered it in the soil.
A spindly plant ain't doing much of that.
Sounds like N fert.should be a neutral factor.
Are they even counting that?

There is a lot of corn used for ethanol, but then you have to pump more oil to replace it.

In Reducing N , the poorest people will lose the most, shortages will drive the prices higher. We might not be any worse off money wise .
The whole idea is just plain dumb,
Especially here on the arid prairies

Yep absolutely
Shows how much these woke greedy bastards care about the poor