For all you EV Promoters

[TOM4CWB]

Bloomberg says talk at the upcoming G7 many countries will be focused on energy security. Climate Change / Green Economy has been bumped way down the list for obvious reasons.
We saw a preview with Germany and Japan visits.

How will PMJT react? Will he keep parroting his single focus agenda? Will he sulk off to the fringes? Or come home with a new attitude and help our allies with new development of our natural resources?

Climate Change/woke/inclusiveness agenda is not playing well these days.

People value their house, car, and food more than they realized.

We went to a seminar on Friday… and went through the Liberals 30% reduction in nitrous oxide emissions….

Even if they had an inkling of a clue of what is actually happening on Canadian grain farms…. The target reduction would reduce global greenhouse gasses by.007% …. Way less than a rounding error…

The same goes for fossil fuel greenhouse gas production from Canadian emissions… at 3% of global emissions… this whole liberal greenhouse emissions plan is pointless and a wasteful economic exercise in fearmongering politics.

Spending a Trillion dollars to make the Canadian economy very in efficient…. Should make anyone with an ounce of Common Sense… take a very deep breath… and firmly state the WEF/UN national and global greenwash rhetoric… must be categorically rejected. They know they (WEF/UN) are misrepresenting future effects and human intervention models of Climate Change theories that are dubious at best.

Conserving energy is smart. Efficient use of resources is smart. Decarbonization provides neither solution… the present CO2 greenhouse gas projected programs do …neither.

If committing suicide is a solution…. Then the WEF/UN have a plan!

Cheers

[fjlip]

"reduce global greenhouse gasses by.007% …. Way less than a rounding error…"

Everything remotely connected with CLIMATE hysteria, are calculations all within a margin of error. Temps, CO2, ocean levels...total horseshit!

[chuckChuck]

Almost every country in the world has committed to reducing greenhouse missions.

Every province in Canada supports climate science and is committed to reducing emissions as well.

Reducing emissions through the 4Rs also will reduce the amount of nutrients ending up in rivers, lakes and the ocean.

If farmers are stewards of the land and environment then you think they should be supportive of improving fertilizer management?

Farmers are receiving benefits from the Renewalable Fuel Standard and Regulations in Canada that help to reduce greenhouse emmissions.

So should we stop subsidizing farmers with these programs because some don't believe greenhouse gases cause climate change?

[TOM4CWB]

CC….

You nor the federal government has any accurate information on how or what methods we are using to apply fertilizer on our farm.

Maximum of 70lb/ac N, direct application in the seed row , high efficiency absorbing P2O5 in year of application 2x plus available vs 11-51-0… high absorption S, K, Cu…. Direct banded next to the seeds….

27 water monitor locations in Alberta found NO leaching in to water bodies in fields in annual crops….

The Feds in Canada are totally speculating in western Canadian crops… not including pulses in calculating nitrous oxide emissions….in rotation being presently grown… using inaccurate Synthetic nitrogen requirements for production of our annual field crops in western Canadian agriculture….

Eastern Canadian Corn/Soy rotations with very different moisture conditions, frost free soil conditions, tillage used, tile drainage used … the transfer of eastern Canadian cropping production on to the vast majority of western Canadian acres… has very much misrepresented many of the production methods…. We use 100% section Controlers, use variable rate where appropriate… low application rate high efficiency fertilizers…

Your assessment of our fertilizer nitrous oxide emissions is with out accurate knowledge of what is going on. Adoption of high efficiency direct seeding… fertilizers and application methods, low opportunity for denitrifying problems…

Lead your vendetta to continue false assessment and assumptions of green house gas emissions from our farms in western Canadian Agricultural production.

You do a huge disservice to all Canadians… in speculative assessment and assumptions of actual farm level performance and efficiencies.

Praying that you think before you accuse us CC… with inappropriate inaccuracies.

Blessings and Cheers

[chuckChuck]

Researchers would disagree with you Tom.

Don Flaten at the U of M has shown that P is moving into rivers and Lakes in Manitoba from crop residues and soils.

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

https://fertilizercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/4R-P-fertilizer-mgmt-for-NGP-summary-July-3-2019_VF.pdf

4R Management of Phosphorus Fertilizer in the Northern Great Plains:
A Review of the Scientific Literature
Summary
July 3, 2019
Cynthia Grant and Don Flaten
University of Manitoba

4.0 Environmental and Sustainability Concerns Related to Phosphorus
Fertilizer
Key Messages
ï‚· Small amounts of P moving into surface water can have a large effect on water quality, so
losses of P that are not agronomically significant can be environmentally damaging,
particularly with respect to algae growth in freshwater (eutrophication).
ï‚· Most of the P loss on the Northern Great Plains is driven by movement of dissolved P during
the snowmelt period.
ï‚· Phosphorus runoff is a function of the concentration of P in soil and vegetation at the soil
surface and the amount of runoff that occurs, so management should focus on reducing the
concentration of P at the soil surface during runoff periods.
ï‚· While very high P concentrations at the soil surface are most frequently caused by excessive
applications of manure P, fertilizer P can also be a contributor, especially if the fertilizer is
broadcast.
ï‚· Soil fertility may be impaired through nutrient depletion if P removed in the harvested crop is
not replaced.
ï‚· Accumulation of cadmium (Cd) in the soil from long-term application of Cd-containing P
fertilizer may be a concern for human and soil health.
ï‚· Banding P fertilizer under the soil surface, near the seed-row during seeding at rates based on
an effective soil test and an accurate prediction of crop requirements will reduce the risk of
excess P in runoff, P depletion and excess Cd accumulation in soils and c

[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.