For all you EV Promoters

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Are you soil testing all your fields frequently or at least some fields?

How is it that you are now asking other posters about their practices, having completely ignored my civil questions to you about your farming practices relating to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

[chuckChuck]

I soil test about 1/2 my fields every year. How about you?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I soil test about 1/2 my fields every year. How about you?

That wasn't one of the questions I asked.

[blackpowder]

Every field, every year for over 30 years.
It's a $100 for crying out loud.
I back check yields with past applied.
I adjust individual fields if necessary.
Largest ROI I've got. All it takes is one wreck.
And I'm doing it for my own reasons.
If I didn't understand the why, no government overwatch would help that.

[chuckChuck]

Good job BP.

Does every farmer do the same?

[WiltonRanch]

Phosphorus deficiency is my biggest concern going forward. I am concerned that the sources aside from the present American mines are in regions considered shaky. There are more places in Canada and USA which are viable when the need arises. In fact Chuck the mine by Timmins produces rock phosphate with no cadmium levels present. The largest proven phosphate rock source exists in Morocco which is owned by a Canadian company. Phosphate runoff is a concern in high use areas but for the majority of prairie farmers we aren’t hardly applying enough to cover removal let alone cause runoff. What I think happens is that high phosphate use areas coincide with higher population areas by water ways and rivers. Same can be said with nitrates as well. It sucks for a lot us in the hinterlands when the hammer comes down for all these schemes to control things not applicable to us. I soil test 80% of my land every year. If I could acidify my subsoil a bit I think I could access tied up nutrients. Have a couple ideas from a couple things I found out. How do you quantify things when they work but you’re not a science based person and steamrolled by the zeitgeist of the technocrats?

[fjlip]

Every test ever done since 1975, calls for MORE than we apply/can afford.

Only one year, 1991 called for ZERO added N and it was correct. 60 bu wheat happened.

#1 CWRS worth less than $2

[blackpowder]

I think it's increasing in my area all the time.
Far more to govt encroachment than just this.

[blackpowder]

Phosphorus deficiency is my biggest concern going forward. I am concerned that the sources aside from the present American mines are in regions considered shaky. There are more places in Canada and USA which are viable when the need arises. In fact Chuck the mine by Timmins produces rock phosphate with no cadmium levels present. The largest proven phosphate rock source exists in Morocco which is owned by a Canadian company. Phosphate runoff is a concern in high use areas but for the majority of prairie farmers we aren’t hardly applying enough to cover removal let alone cause runoff. What I think happens is that high phosphate use areas coincide with higher population areas by water ways and rivers. Same can be said with nitrates as well. It sucks for a lot us in the hinterlands when the hammer comes down for all these schemes to control things not applicable to us. I soil test 80% of my land every year. If I could acidify my subsoil a bit I think I could access tied up nutrients. Have a couple ideas from a couple things I found out. How do you quantify things when they work but you’re not a science based person and steamrolled by the zeitgeist of the technocrats?

I see a day when we could be liming here. Should be doing some now.
We're increasing P rates a fair amount. Theory is Al toxicity.

[WiltonRanch]

I see a day when we could be liming here. Should be doing some now.
We're increasing P rates a fair amount. Theory is Al toxicity.

I have high calcium content 6” and down. Ph 8.2 down there. Top 6” 6.5 to 6.9. Using mesc on virtually every acre at maybe 5-9 lbs of sulphur depending if it a cereal or canola. Barley yields sucked here until I inadvertently did a side by side trial of urea/11-52 and urea/mesc. Same nitrogen and phosphorus levels but 20 bushels better with mesc blend. Tried again in 21’ on another field in the drought but barley was still in the 80’s. Last year didn’t use mesc and barley sucked. My bins are full of urea/mesc. Is it the safer nature of mesc vs 11-52 or is it the sulphur? I run stealth pr double shoot so separation is good and a 20# rate of actual p is really stuff all. So what’s going on? Im a cowboy hill farmer. My remedy is usually seed it to grass and alfalfa but can’t do that on every acre.