Bad news

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Bad news

Austranada's Avatar Mar 13, 2019 | 07:21 1 https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/03/13/global-glyphosate-study-pilot-phase-shows-reproductive-and-developmental-effects-at-safe-dose/#.XIkDWrfmg0M Reply With Quote
wd9
Mar 13, 2019 | 08:24 2 That's terrible. We better stop using glyphosate. Thanks for posting the study. We'll use 2,4-D instead. Reply With Quote
Austranada's Avatar Mar 13, 2019 | 08:47 3 Here in Oz new restrictions on the use of 2-4 D have recently been imposed by the APVMA due to rampant abuse such as is the case with gly worldwide. Widespread chem resistant weed species coupled with spray record audits is forcing guys to learn how to farm Reply With Quote
wd9
Mar 13, 2019 | 08:54 4 That's terrible. We better just all go organic. We can just use cover crops, humic acid, and regenerative Ag to fix 1000 lbs of nitrogen a year like good ol Gabe does. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Mar 13, 2019 | 09:06 5 Yes ,we should all park our sprayers and mechanical equipment and go back to horse drawn plows. Let all the poor people starve since only the rich will afford to buy food. Reply With Quote

  • Mar 13, 2019 | 14:34 6 Gabe Brown doesn't say give up all chemicals, fertilizers and machinery, they are just tools that are used carefully when needed.

    Reduced tillage, direct seeding, cover crops, rotational grazing and a focus on improving soil quality first seem to be working for him.

    As he says "I would rather sign the back of cheques than the front!"

    Is the current high input, high cost system working? Are you making a fair profit? Do you have more farming neighbors or less? Is it sustainable for the next 200 generations?

    The worlds supply of easily mined phosphorous is going to run out in a few hundred years or earlier.

    There is no way in hell that we can sustain the kind of resource depletion, environmental degradation and reliance on the high usage of fossil energy sources and inputs to feed this planet for 1000s of years into the future.

    The population needs to go down and we need to farm smarter. Reply With Quote
    Mar 13, 2019 | 15:59 7 Chuck is mimicking A.O.C. now. Reply With Quote
    wd9
    Mar 13, 2019 | 16:02 8
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Is the current high input, high cost system working? Are you making a fair profit? Do you have more farming neighbors or less? Is it sustainable for the next 200 generations?
    Yes very well.
    There is no such thing as a fair profit, only profit or loss. In terms of profit, better then any time in history.
    Irrelevant question.
    No one can answer that. Reply With Quote
    Mar 13, 2019 | 16:57 9
    Quote Originally Posted by wd9 View Post
    Yes very well.
    There is no such thing as a fair profit, only profit or loss. In terms of profit, better then any time in history.
    Irrelevant question.
    No one can answer that.
    Agreed some are doing very well under the current system and making a significant profit. Fair may not be the correct assessment. Is it enough profit considering the capital invested and the risk involved?

    If it is working so well, why do we hear so much doom and gloom on Agriville? Many have decided to retire early, sell out and let someone else take the risk.

    What will happen when the cheap phosphorous runs out and we are forced to recycle phosphorous?

    Do you think the current high input energy intensive system is transferable to developing nations and is it sustainable in the medium to long term?

    Most of the food in the world is produced by small farmers who generally can't afford the expensive technology. Reply With Quote
    Mar 13, 2019 | 17:03 10
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Gabe Brown doesn't say give up all chemicals, fertilizers and machinery, they are just tools that are used carefully when needed.

    Reduced tillage, direct seeding, cover crops, rotational grazing and a focus on improving soil quality first seem to be working for him.

    As he says "I would rather sign the back of cheques than the front!"

    Is the current high input, high cost system working? Are you making a fair profit? Do you have more farming neighbors or less? Is it sustainable for the next 200 generations?

    The worlds supply of easily mined phosphorous is going to run out in a few hundred years or earlier.

    There is no way in hell that we can sustain the kind of resource depletion, environmental degradation and reliance on the high usage of fossil energy sources and inputs to feed this planet for 1000s of years into the future.

    The population needs to go down and we need to farm smarter.
    Cows?? Are we not suppose to get rid of them so your above system is useless. How much phos does the human body have? We could start composting liberals lol. Reply With Quote
    Mar 13, 2019 | 17:41 11 World population is one thing I wouldn’t worry about, if the Democrats get back in power there will be a war somewhere they have been craving for one for a few years. Reply With Quote
    Mar 13, 2019 | 18:44 12 Appears Gabe has done some amazing things with less inputs. His unconventional approach is working for him appears. No problem with unconventional thinkers and doers. They spark innovation. Though the problem lies in the people who jump on these bandwagons without first successfully adapting similar systems to their own conditions. Then there are the parasites who try benefiting off a system that reduces inputs (cover crop sales, snake oil). They see suckers coming always. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • wd9
    Mar 13, 2019 | 23:11 13
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Agreed some are doing very well under the current system and making a significant profit. Fair may not be the correct assessment. Is it enough profit considering the capital invested and the risk involved?

    If it isn't, do something else that is. Maybe start an oil company in alberta.
    If it is working so well, why do we hear so much doom and gloom on Agriville? Many have decided to retire early, sell out and let someone else take the risk.

    Retirement is not a bad thing. There are an abnormally high percentage of doom and gloomers on Agriville. Walk thru the parking lot at Crop Production Show, see any rusted out 20 year old half tons? Or are there new super duty diesels, Platinum editions, and Escalades wall to wall?

    What will happen when the cheap phosphorous runs out and we are forced to recycle phosphorous?
    Then we recycle Phos.

    Do you think the current high input energy intensive system is transferable to developing nations and is it sustainable in the medium to long term? No agriculture is sustainable if it uses any non renewable resources. We are wealthiest, greediest generation that has ever lived because we just take, use, and don't pay back a single thing.

    Most of the food in the world is produced by small farmers who generally can't afford the expensive technology.
    Citation please supporting this.
    Answers above. Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 08:01 14 The state of food and agriculture 2014: Innovation in family farming
    FAO, Rome (2014)

    http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4040e.pdf Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 09:25 15
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    The state of food and agriculture 2014: Innovation in family farming
    FAO, Rome (2014)

    http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4040e.pdf
    I didn't read the whole paper but tried to pick some parts that may relate to Canadian family farms.

    Can't see much there that relates to our situation at all but fear this is what they use for a data point in all the recent proclamations on how agriculture needs quantum change to curb global warming (ie;Beef to beans).

    Probably a good example of how far off the radar we are when it comes to world problems.

    What issues in this paper do you think apply to your farm chuck? Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 10:23 16
    Quote Originally Posted by shtferbrains View Post
    I didn't read the whole paper but tried to pick some parts that may relate to Canadian family farms.

    Can't see much there that relates to our situation at all but fear this is what they use for a data point in all the recent proclamations on how agriculture needs quantum change to curb global warming (ie;Beef to beans).

    Probably a good example of how far off the radar we are when it comes to world problems.

    What issues in this paper do you think apply to your farm chuck?
    How much food is produced on small holdings around the world is not well understood. But the majority of farmers in the world are smaller subsistence farmers who produce small surpluses and take care of a lot of their own needs first in India,China and parts of Africa.

    In our case a lot of North America grains are used for ethanol and bio-diesel. Isn't 40% of the US corn crop used for ethanol? How much of the rest of corn and soybeans are used for animal feed? I am not sure. Western Canada's share of human food grains market would be higher.

    So the mantra that we have to grow more to feed a hungry world is not really accurate when a large amount of our crops are used for ethanol and animal feed that is consumed by wealthier consumers.

    If we needed to grow more food for calories we wouldn't be growing so much grains for ethanol or feed grains for red meat and dairy because those are or not the most efficient uses if you want to increase the food supply for developing nations. Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 11:50 17
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    How much food is produced on small holdings around the world is not well understood. But the majority of farmers in the world are smaller subsistence farmers who produce small surpluses and take care of a lot of their own needs first in India,China and parts of Africa.

    In our case a lot of North America grains are used for ethanol and bio-diesel. Isn't 40% of the US corn crop used for ethanol? How much of the rest of corn and soybeans are used for animal feed? I am not sure. Western Canada's share of human food grains market would be higher.

    So the mantra that we have to grow more to feed a hungry world is not really accurate when a large amount of our crops are used for ethanol and animal feed that is consumed by wealthier consumers.

    If we needed to grow more food for calories we wouldn't be growing so much grains for ethanol or feed grains for red meat and dairy because those are or not the most efficient uses if you want to increase the food supply for developing nations.
    I don’t think there will be a problem feeding a couple more billion people. It is just that flooding the developing world with our surpluses can bugger up their ag industries. No doubt they need our exports but if it wasn’t for ethanol and livestock in North America we would be flooding the developing world. Judging by how India shut the doors to our pulses at this time their own farmers are supplying their needs. A lot of the great thinkers can advocate for increasing plant based protein but until the market says otherwise it would be foolhardy to change the paradigm. In the event of a worldwide food shortage you would think the surpluses put into ethanol, biodiesel, industrial products, and meat would shift to food. I always thought the underlying reason for the ethanol mandate was to ensure an adequate food supply and keep farmers going in the event of a war. I would love to grow pulses and legumes as part of my rotation but my geography doesn’t lend well to that. I could see livestock pushed back to areas not much good for anything else. You seen that when grain prices went up. As far as the feeding industry is concerned it may shrink if food demand increases and livestock numbers decline. Meat especially beef will become a luxury food. Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 12:04 18 I would agree Wilton Ranch, let the market dictate the demand for food types. I don't think the introduction of ethanol had anything to do with agriculture - it was to quell consumer outrage at significantly higher fuel costs at the pump and the fear of running out. I'm confident the demand for meat, particularly beef will continue to increase globally. The countries with the huge and growing populations aspire to eat more meat and less lentils/rice. Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 13:14 19 Sad fact is , world hunger is caused by corruption in governments and terrible politics , not lack of food.
    Look at Venezuela. And many many other countries that have sources of wealth . There is no way there should be food shortages . Political corruption is the blame for 99% of the hunger in the world today . Droughts happen , but there is always a surplus of food somewhere. Just look at grain prices ... they suck because of ... surplus and market manipulation.
    Growing grains and oilseeds for bio fuels has zero to do with world hunger ... sorry that’s B/S. All the mash/meal/DDG’s gets used for animal feed .
    We should be focused far more on bio diesel from our canola here in Canada to help reduce emissions . We could use the entire canola crop in Canada for bio diesel and not one person would starve but our emissions would get reduced .
    But we won’t , we will carbon tax ourselves into a net loss on the farm and it will have zero impact on the climate at all ... ever . Oh and ban all the use of pesticides and fertilizers along the way, or have them taxed to a point where it will be not economical .
    Gabe Brown has a good model, no doubt. Do we need to look at that system and tweak it to make our own farms sustainable ? Ya maybe we do . Some of us are already .
    But it’s not a one shoe fits all . it’s not sustainable as is on every acre in North America . It requires cattle to be efficient and work as a system. That many cattle would collapse the cattle market and the green wackos will force fart tax’s to a point that will not be sustainable lol . Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 14:32 20 There is a theme developing here.

    That's terrible about cows. Lab based meat is going to kick the global grassers ass. Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Mar 14, 2019 | 18:56 21 Evidence emerging on a regular basis that the current mainstream production model has lead to massive decline in health for the consumer. Yet the discussion turns to "profit". Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 19:29 22
    Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
    Evidence emerging on a regular basis that the current mainstream production model has lead to massive decline in health for the consumer. Yet the discussion turns to "profit".
    Yes , Food additives, processed foods and preservatives are a big concern . Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Austranada's Avatar Mar 14, 2019 | 19:54 23
    Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
    Yes , Food additives, processed foods and preservatives are a big concern .
    Playing ostrich eclipses those issues Reply With Quote
    farmaholic's Avatar Mar 14, 2019 | 19:55 24
    Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
    Yes , Food additives, processed foods and preservatives are a big concern .
    Add in lethargy, and a sedentary lifestyle, or high risk lifestyle, smoking, excessive drinking, drugs....

    Bubble wrapped antiseptic kids. Wash your hands at every turn.

    A society of affluent hypochondriacs....in some cases. Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 20:27 25 Terrible....
    Name:  life expectancy.jpg
Views: 388
Size:  92.9 KB
    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...016&start=1960 Reply With Quote
    Mar 14, 2019 | 21:24 26
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
    It seems to apply here. The CO2 as a pollutant cult could probably consider this quote as well. But none of them will. Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Mar 15, 2019 | 04:40 27
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    Add in lethargy, and a sedentary lifestyle, or high risk lifestyle, smoking, excessive drinking, drugs....

    Bubble wrapped antiseptic kids. Wash your hands at every turn.

    A society of affluent hypochondriacs....in some cases.
    Common denominator in the entire population though is that they unknowingly and unwillingly have glyphosate in their system and consume it everyday. Reply With Quote
    Mar 15, 2019 | 06:39 28
    Quote Originally Posted by Austranada View Post
    Common denominator in the entire population though is that they unknowingly and unwillingly have glyphosate in their system and consume it everyday.
    In the group of demented liars that have emerged lately, you're starting to float to the top.

    Remind Hugo there are no secrets to farming. Reply With Quote
    Mar 15, 2019 | 06:57 29
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Gabe Brown doesn't say give up all chemicals, fertilizers and machinery, they are just tools that are used carefully when needed.

    Reduced tillage, direct seeding, cover crops, rotational grazing and a focus on improving soil quality first seem to be working for him.

    As he says "I would rather sign the back of cheques than the front!"

    Is the current high input, high cost system working? Are you making a fair profit? Do you have more farming neighbors or less? Is it sustainable for the next 200 generations?

    The worlds supply of easily mined phosphorous is going to run out in a few hundred years or earlier.

    There is no way in hell that we can sustain the kind of resource depletion, environmental degradation and reliance on the high usage of fossil energy sources and inputs to feed this planet for 1000s of years into the future.

    The population needs to go down and we need to farm smarter.
    Gabe Brown lives in a much different climate zone than Western Canadian farmers.

    Reduced tillage, direct seeding without glyphosate equals a diversity of 90% quackgrass.

    Some of Gabe Brown's customers are the nouveaux rich oilfield families of Bismarck. That's a big help in those cheque backs that want for signing.

    There's more to Gabe's story that's his to tell, and he does, in person.

    Everyone's opportunities/possibilities and story is different. Nome farmers just can't make it in modern ag some flourish. This has been the way since forever. Blanket condemning an industry leads individuals to look at the symptoms that affect their ability to succeed rather than looking at the cause of the symptoms. Reply With Quote
    Austranada's Avatar Mar 16, 2019 | 04:19 30
    Quote Originally Posted by Braveheart View Post
    Gabe Brown lives in a much different climate zone than Western Canadian farmers.

    Reduced tillage, direct seeding without glyphosate equals a diversity of 90% quackgrass.

    Some of Gabe Brown's customers are the nouveaux rich oilfield families of Bismarck. That's a big help in those cheque backs that want for signing.

    There's more to Gabe's story that's his to tell, and he does, in person.

    Everyone's opportunities/possibilities and story is different. Nome farmers just can't make it in modern ag some flourish. This has been the way since forever. Blanket condemning an industry leads individuals to look at the symptoms that affect their ability to succeed rather than looking at the cause of the symptoms.
    I won't call you a demented liar but some of your statements are obviously untrue. Oh and tell Hugo yourself.
    Furthermore Gabe Brown's model is a template that has been tweeked and works worldwide. Reply With Quote