Massive Farm Protest in Belgium

[shtferbrains]

And a tiny bit further.
All those years we chased Protein premiums, long before VR, we were wasting N as the yield response curve tips over at about 12%.

I have never seen what is considered the optimal residual N level for these programs but the promotion of cover crops implies it would be as close to zero as possible.
Experience locally indicates there has to be at least 40# of residual N to achieve the 13.5% protein premiums.

There will be much debate about maintaining yields if you extract all possible nutrients out of the soil down to rooting depth and consider all nutrients in the "Right Place" if in the seed row only.

IMHO much of the relatively recent yield increases come from not extracting everything available and leaving some nutrients for the whole root mass to access in the next crop.

[blackpowder]

Excellent point. How does one straddle a razor's edge when we can't reliably predict N from OM or Moisture for example.
Split applications perhaps the easy answer there. But doing it has been impossible here and honestly, lends itself to more loss imho.
VR from px and oil along with yield an interesting idea all the same.
Govt ideas never in synch with reality of course. But you can't explain that.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.producer.com/news/survey-finds-few-farmers-vary-fertilizer-rates/

Survey finds few farmers vary fertilizer rates
By
Ed White
Published: 24 hours ago


Soil specialist says farmers could easily improve fertilizer efficiency by changing rates between fields of the same crop

Most prairie farmers don’t change their fertilizer rates between fields of the same crop, a survey has revealed.

While “astounding,” Manitoba Agriculture soil specialist John Heard said it means that farmers could easily improve their fertilizer efficiency.

“A lot of them are probably just running with a wheat blend and a canola blend type of thing,” said Heard, who admitted he was surprised that only 25 percent of Manitoba farmers told Stratus Ag Research that they change their fertilizer rates between different fields of the same crop. Only 21 percent of Alberta farmers answering the survey said they change rates, while 18 percent of Saskatchewan farmers said they employ different rates field to field.

Soil structure and moisture conditions often differ substantially between different quarter sections, so farmers hoping for the least wasteful use of fertilizer would be expected to alter fertilizer rates based upon those conditions.

The fact they don’t suggests much crop fertility is being done poorly, something that could hurt yields and cause higher emissions from cropland.

Since there is growing pressure on farmers to cut fertilizer emissions, the suggestion that one of the main elements of 4R fertilizing is not being practised by three-quarters of farmers means it would be easy for farmers to quickly reduce some of their emissions from farmland.

There is also little uptake so far in nitrification inhibitors, which also appear to offer a simple way to reduce emissions. That means much “low-hanging fruit” is still available for reducing emissions.

However, the situation isn’t so promising for the 17 percent of Manitoba farmers who say they use variable rate technology and the 25 percent who already change their fertilizer rates field by field.

For them, much of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked, making it hard for them to slash emissions by 30 percent from today.

“A lot of farmers are already doing these good things,” said Heard.

“That’s what makes it hard for them to do 30 percent better than they’re already doing.”

[Guest]

Huh? Don’t believe that fora minute?
We change every field and most here do , WTF is the use of soil sampling if you don’t ?
Eddy is on a mission and it has nothing to do with helping farmers

[Guest]

A quick google search reveals approx 73.5 % of land in sask is soil tested
Don’t believe all the BS you read in the commie rags

[WiltonRanch]

I prefer not to lose my head on this discussion but someone is a bit ignorant to claim farmers are pouring the juice on with little regard to realistic yields or cost effectiveness. Farming is business not some side project a university professor or person working a city job pissing around with on the weekend for kicks. Soil testing is a tool in the toolkit along with findings from previous experiences and experiments. Every piece of land is different as is the one farming it. Whether it’s an out of touch technocrat socialist born with a silver spoon in their mouth or a first or second generation operator their experience and goals will vary greatly. Ag can get so ****ed up because of ignorant people who think a one size fits all approach is appropriate. The Producer is entitled to their opinion and freedom of speech is paramount but they’re out of touch and full of shit.

[furrowtickler]

I prefer not to lose my head on this discussion but someone is a bit ignorant to claim farmers are pouring the juice on with little regard to realistic yields or cost effectiveness. Farming is business not some side project a university professor or person working a city job pissing around with on the weekend for kicks. Soil testing is a tool in the toolkit along with findings from previous experiences and experiments. Every piece of land is different as is the one farming it. Whether it’s an out of touch technocrat socialist born with a silver spoon in their mouth or a first or second generation operator their experience and goals will vary greatly. Ag can get so ****ed up because of ignorant people who think a one size fits all approach is appropriate. The Producer is entitled to their opinion and freedom of speech is paramount but they’re out of touch and full of shit.

Agree totally
With margins as tight are for the vast majority of us , there is virtually no over application of any input . Maybe a few higher production areas but again very far and few between . And in those highly productive areas they are pulling off crops that take high fertility.
In dry land farming one cannot risk wasting money on over applying inputs , you simply won’t be farming long .
Soil testing helps for sure but knowing your area rainfall and soil type and soil moisture gives most guys a very accurate confidence in fertility needed .
We know already soil moisture is extremely low and will have mediocre soil fertility after last years decent crops . So there will be no high fertility at seeding , if moisture conditions improve , crop establishment is good and weed control is good we will top dress . If it stays dry , extra fertilizer will not be applied .
We do the three R’s , just different than what armchair agronomists promote like in the Producer or those who have never actually farmed an acre in their life . Textbook farming is easy , reality can humble anyone .

[shtferbrains]

This has to be some kind of distraction away from the places with actual issues.

The issues are in the places with intensive livestock and higher rainfall near waterways.
Regional problem not a Country wide problem.
Dryland agriculture is a very small contributor and they know it so why the focus?

Southern Manitoba Hog barns near the Red River have long been known to contribute to algae bloom on Lake Winnipeg.

But lets not talk about all the Hogs, Dairy, and Chickens near the St Lawrence and the Great Lakes where they have much higher rainfall and spread manure all winter.
Residual fertility off the charts.

[chuckChuck]

So the response is the survey is not accurate? LOL

How do you know this unless you have a large survey sample that says the opposite?

Personal accounts and coffee shop shop analysis doesn't cut it compared to random surveys.

There sure is a lot of denial and complaining about the voluntary goal of reducing fertilizer emissions.

The survey results clearly show that there is room for improvement in fertilizer management on many prairie farms and the 4Rs are not widely used.

But for those who don't agree with the idea of reducing emissions the first thing said is "there is no problem"?

Good luck winning that argument when the opposite is true.

[Guest]

Your survey was done on your left leaning paper
Most of respondents would be left leaning regressive farmers locked in the past , or NFU members
There’s your reason

[chuckChuck]

Your survey was done on your left leaning paper
Most of respondents would be left leaning regressive farmers locked in the past , or NFU members
There’s your reason

Huh? it was done by Stratus Ag Research. https://stratusresearch.com/ Not the Western Producer

They are entirely an ag research company.

So you better come up with another excuse as to why the survey is not accurate.

[fjlip]

Ever hear of BRIBES, COERCION? AKA Covid scam?