Test How we could actually cut fertilizer and not cut production. Test

Commodity Marketing

Tools

How we could actually cut fertilizer and not cut production.

Test
Jul 26, 2022 | 10:43 1 Pretend for a minute that the porposed fertilizer reductions are actually about the environment, or emissions.

If we were actually serious about doing this, for all the right reasons, I suggest it could be done, without cutting production, and while inreasing profits. Using existing technology.

My definition would be cutting fertilizer or fertilizer emissions per unit of production. Any other measure is irrelevant. lbs of N per bushel of production has room for improvement.

1) Drainage. Organized, coordinated, large scale. I realize this doesn't apply to all areas of the semi arid prairies, but where excess water is a recurring scourge, the losses due to denitrification and leaching and poor ROI on fertilizer applied, effective drainage would cut fertilizer use per unit of production by a wide margin. Instead we have layers of bureaucracy and NIMBY's and environuts blocking any attempts. In most places it is a very contentious issues with every man for himself with no access to public or communal drainage networks. As an added bonus, ( at least here) the lower areas have such high OM and deep rich soil that they don't require nearly as much fertilizer, specifically N to grow even more yield than the dryland.

2) Irrigation How many dryland acres do not reach the potential that they were fertilized for due to lack or water, or weren't fertilized to their most cost effective potential due to concerns about lack or water. There is no shortage of water across the prairies. Proven to be very effective across Southern Alberta and into Saskatchewan. Providing the ability to fertigate, to apply nutrients at exactly the right time and rate, reducing risk of leaching, denitrification, or run off. Increased production per acre would reduce over all emissions/energy input per unit of production, since most other inputs are fixed. It doesn't require more seed or herbicide or fuel to grow the crop when the yield is double or triple.

Even better yet, irrigation and drainage together to help repair saline soils so they can grow to the potential that they are fertilized for.

We have already wasted billions on climate scams, if we would have invested that into drainage and irrigation, we would have something very tangible to show for it that would last for generations to come.

3) Accurate long term weather forecasts This might be a pipe dream, and might involve technology that doesn't yet exist, but if we spent a fraction the money on this that we waste on prognosticating about global warming, there are bound to be improvements. If I could know my upcoming growing season weather before seeding, I could plan accordingly. cut back on the low areas and grow water tolerant crops on a wet year, give the low areas everything on a dry year, grow short season crops on a frost prone year, etc. Opposite for those in dry areas of course. This would reduce the wasted fertilizer on places or times when mother nature doesn't cooperate.

4) Encourage livestock, especially livestock integration with grain. And this should have been #1. I don't need to explain to this crowd why this is necessary. The current mindset and profitability and subsidies and insurance have exactly the opposite effect. Shipping all the nutrients to intensive livestock in feedlot alley, or overseas, where there is already an excess of nutrients is not sustainable long term. I really think that tweaks to crop insurance and other programs could encourage livestock producers and grain producers to work together on using by products, and grazing stubble and spreading manure further than the 10 acres by the barn, and returning the nutrients directly by feeding in the same place where the nutrients came from. We are hollowing out our cattle sector at an alarming rate, and they truly are the most sustainable form of agriculture we have. If we really wanted to encourage sustainable organic production, it is going to require massive amounts of livestock. The attacks on livestock by animal rights and global warming zealots and NIMBY's are doing immeasurable harm to any attempts to reduce fertilizer use or get to sustainable agriculture.

I will add more as I get time. What else do you have to add to the list? Reply With Quote

  • Jul 26, 2022 | 11:50 2 You can’t use science to rationalize what the liberals are doing. The #1 green house gas is h2o. Reply With Quote

  • Jul 26, 2022 | 12:03 3
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Pretend for a minute that the porposed fertilizer reductions are actually about the environment, or emissions.

    If we were actually serious about doing this, for all the right reasons, I suggest it could be done, without cutting production, and while inreasing profits. Using existing technology.

    My definition would be cutting fertilizer or fertilizer emissions per unit of production. Any other measure is irrelevant. lbs of N per bushel of production has room for improvement.

    1) Drainage. Organized, coordinated, large scale. I realize this doesn't apply to all areas of the semi arid prairies, but where excess water is a recurring scourge, the losses due to denitrification and leaching and poor ROI on fertilizer applied, effective drainage would cut fertilizer use per unit of production by a wide margin. Instead we have layers of bureaucracy and NIMBY's and environuts blocking any attempts. In most places it is a very contentious issues with every man for himself with no access to public or communal drainage networks. As an added bonus, ( at least here) the lower areas have such high OM and deep rich soil that they don't require nearly as much fertilizer, specifically N to grow even more yield than the dryland.

    2) Irrigation How many dryland acres do not reach the potential that they were fertilized for due to lack or water, or weren't fertilized to their most cost effective potential due to concerns about lack or water. There is no shortage of water across the prairies. Proven to be very effective across Southern Alberta and into Saskatchewan. Providing the ability to fertigate, to apply nutrients at exactly the right time and rate, reducing risk of leaching, denitrification, or run off. Increased production per acre would reduce over all emissions/energy input per unit of production, since most other inputs are fixed. It doesn't require more seed or herbicide or fuel to grow the crop when the yield is double or triple.

    Even better yet, irrigation and drainage together to help repair saline soils so they can grow to the potential that they are fertilized for.

    We have already wasted billions on climate scams, if we would have invested that into drainage and irrigation, we would have something very tangible to show for it that would last for generations to come.

    3) Accurate long term weather forecasts This might be a pipe dream, and might involve technology that doesn't yet exist, but if we spent a fraction the money on this that we waste on prognosticating about global warming, there are bound to be improvements. If I could know my upcoming growing season weather before seeding, I could plan accordingly. cut back on the low areas and grow water tolerant crops on a wet year, give the low areas everything on a dry year, grow short season crops on a frost prone year, etc. Opposite for those in dry areas of course. This would reduce the wasted fertilizer on places or times when mother nature doesn't cooperate.

    4) Encourage livestock, especially livestock integration with grain. And this should have been #1. I don't need to explain to this crowd why this is necessary. The current mindset and profitability and subsidies and insurance have exactly the opposite effect. Shipping all the nutrients to intensive livestock in feedlot alley, or overseas, where there is already an excess of nutrients is not sustainable long term. I really think that tweaks to crop insurance and other programs could encourage livestock producers and grain producers to work together on using by products, and grazing stubble and spreading manure further than the 10 acres by the barn, and returning the nutrients directly by feeding in the same place where the nutrients came from. We are hollowing out our cattle sector at an alarming rate, and they truly are the most sustainable form of agriculture we have. If we really wanted to encourage sustainable organic production, it is going to require massive amounts of livestock. The attacks on livestock by animal rights and global warming zealots and NIMBY's are doing immeasurable harm to any attempts to reduce fertilizer use or get to sustainable agriculture.

    I will add more as I get time. What else do you have to add to the list?
    The Eco-Terrorists/Climate Change Cult will find a reason to stop every idea you have... they don't want solutions... they believe they will save the earth by starving out about 5billion of us...

    Logic and reason are not a solution obviously... Just like Putin... fear and violence rule the civilization we are developing today, irrational and destructive.

    God have mercy and give us the grace to forgive these evil actors1

    Blessing and Salutations! Pray for Peace... We fight not against flesh and blood, but principalities and dark evil powers in high places. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 26, 2022 | 13:06 4
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM4CWB View Post
    The Eco-Terrorists/Climate Change Cult will find a reason to stop every idea you have... they don't want solutions....
    See the first sentence in my first post in this thread. Or nearly any other post I've made about the climate cult and the ecoterrorists. I think we all accept that they aren't looking for workable solutions. I'm just throwing this out there to show what could be done if we were actually serious about solutions and if they were actually a serious problem to solve. It is apparent that neither of those conditions are true.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Jul 26, 2022 at 16:55.
    Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 13:07 5 another way ; compost liberals, then spread Reply With Quote

  • Jul 26, 2022 | 15:12 6 Guys dropping out of cow/calf operation not sure how you figure manure can be a substitute for fertilizer on the vast acres of crop production in western Canada.

    And sure as shit guys who have never had livestock are not going to do 180's now, in fact it's the exact opposite.

    Not to mention cow/calf guys are working their asses off just trying to survive.

    Oh I forgot weren't you promoting that Gabe horseshit last fall.
    Last edited by foragefarmer; Jul 26, 2022 at 15:18.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 26, 2022 | 16:10 7
    Quote Originally Posted by foragefarmer View Post
    Guys dropping out of cow/calf operation not sure how you figure manure can be a substitute for fertilizer on the vast acres of crop production in western Canada.

    And sure as shit guys who have never had livestock are not going to do 180's now, in fact it's the exact opposite.

    Not to mention cow/calf guys are working their asses off just trying to survive.

    Oh I forgot weren't you promoting that Gabe horseshit last fall.
    I think you have me confused with someone else.
    And nowhere do I say that I expect the average grain farmer to suddenly want to become a cowboy. But there are a lot of landless cowboys begging for an opportunity.
    Unite them with their grain farmer neighbors under a mutually beneficial arrangement, that makes use of the byproducts and crop failures and land unfit for cultivation. While simultaneously increasing the productivity of the cropland at almost no cost to either party. I had to thread on this very topic a while back. Our beef sector is not competitive with countries without winter time. We either give up on the beef sector or we find a way to make it competitive. Buying expensive land and expensive tractors and equipment and facilities and fertilizer and trucking feed all over the country and feeding them eight months of the year, isn't working. Especially when there are so many opportunities for synergies between the two industries.

    Do you have any constructive suggestions on this topic? It is going to be forced on us whether we like it or not. Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 16:34 8 We're about to get mugged the same way the oil industry got mugged. Anybody who tells you there's any logic or reason involved is delusional or complicit in the scam or both. We won't get consulted - our opinion is irrelevant to the Lib brain trust. We need to either elect a Conservative government next time out or separate. Any other suggestions are just as delusional as the whole nitrogen reduction scam. Reply With Quote

  • Jul 26, 2022 | 17:35 9
    Quote Originally Posted by bobofthenorth View Post
    We're about to get mugged the same way the oil industry got mugged. Anybody who tells you there's any logic or reason involved is delusional or complicit in the scam or both. We won't get consulted - our opinion is irrelevant to the Lib brain trust. We need to either elect a Conservative government next time out or separate. Any other suggestions are just as delusional as the whole nitrogen reduction scam.
    Western Canada has elected conservatives all along. I don't think that's going to help either.

    The drought last year received no standing at the ag committee in Ottawa while the conservatives put the PEI potato on the agenda along with the BC floods.

    Both deserved attention but why were farmers and ranchers ignored? Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 18:18 10 Products like this have been around for a while , some used to call them snake oil . We’ll time will tell but this will the next level that of fertilizer reduction if they perform.


    Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 19:43 11
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    Western Canada has elected conservatives all along. I don't think that's going to help either.

    The drought last year received no standing at the ag committee in Ottawa while the conservatives put the PEI potato on the agenda along with the BC floods.

    Both deserved attention but why were farmers and ranchers ignored?
    The feds are spending big $ on irrigation and still pay 60% of crop insurance premium for farmers. No other industry gets ins premiums paid for them and a guarantee that farmers will be paid if crop loss. Must be worth something. Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 19:45 12
    Quote Originally Posted by foragefarmer View Post
    Guys dropping out of cow/calf operation not sure how you figure manure can be a substitute for fertilizer on the vast acres of crop production in western Canada.

    And sure as shit guys who have never had livestock are not going to do 180's now, in fact it's the exact opposite.

    Not to mention cow/calf guys are working their asses off just trying to survive.

    Oh I forgot weren't you promoting that Gabe horseshit last fall.
    Being that you are a “forage farmer” you would see firsthand the cow business has been shit for years. With mandated reductions in nitrogen use it is worrisome the cattle industry will be the baby thrown out with the bath water because of less grain grown. I seen cows were going nowhere 6 years ago and halved the herd. I do not regret it. Talking with a friend who is more gung ho about cows and he’s talking about halving his herd because it’s a money hemorrhage. Even $1800 steers this fall isn’t enough to wipe the stink off this industry. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 26, 2022 | 20:38 13
    Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
    Products like this have been around for a while , some used to call them snake oil . We’ll time will tell but this will the next level that of fertilizer reduction if they perform.
    You're absolutely right - technology may save us from governmental malice. This is not the only example of this type of technology that is under development. Nitrogen fixing cereals would absolutely reduce "emissions" from the evil fertilizer industry. I guarantee you though that Marie Clod Bobo knows exactly nothing about this technology and Skippy knows even less. Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 20:50 14
    Quote Originally Posted by bobofthenorth View Post
    You're absolutely right - technology may save us from governmental malice. This is not the only example of this type of technology that is under development. Nitrogen fixing cereals would absolutely reduce "emissions" from the evil fertilizer industry. I guarantee you though that Marie Clod Bobo knows exactly nothing about this technology and Skippy knows even less.
    Was a slap in the face to ag when shithead put this in as our ag minister. How could you take anything out it’s mouth as worth listening to or believing. It’s like armoured keep as the energy minister. Reply With Quote
    edl
    Jul 26, 2022 | 20:56 15
    Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
    Products like this have been around for a while , some used to call them snake oil . We’ll time will tell but this will the next level that of fertilizer reduction if they perform.


    have tried it and its snake oil Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 21:23 16 The neighbour had his tractor exhaust piped into his air drill, he paid a small fortune for it and he bragged it up, a few years later he couldn’t look me in the eye when he asked me if I wanted to buy it.

    It’s probably still in his junk pile. Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 21:28 17
    Quote Originally Posted by edl View Post
    have tried it and its snake oil
    There is several trials here , nothing noticeable so far , will see what the grain cart says .
    There are many more coming , they will make it work eventually. Reply With Quote
    Jul 26, 2022 | 21:41 18
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    I think you have me confused with someone else.
    And nowhere do I say that I expect the average grain farmer to suddenly want to become a cowboy. But there are a lot of landless cowboys begging for an opportunity.
    Unite them with their grain farmer neighbors under a mutually beneficial arrangement, that makes use of the byproducts and crop failures and land unfit for cultivation. While simultaneously increasing the productivity of the cropland at almost no cost to either party. I had to thread on this very topic a while back. Our beef sector is not competitive with countries without winter time. We either give up on the beef sector or we find a way to make it competitive. Buying expensive land and expensive tractors and equipment and facilities and fertilizer and trucking feed all over the country and feeding them eight months of the year, isn't working. Especially when there are so many opportunities for synergies between the two industries.

    Do you have any constructive suggestions on this topic? It is going to be forced on us whether we like it or not.
    What you are asking for is history to repeat it's self when there was a family farm on every second quarter with cattle. Regrettably those days are gone no matter how much you romanticize about it.

    Why would cattle guys who are struggling to make a honest living stay in an industry just to ensure you can spread their manure on your grain land.

    There's my contribution the honest truth, cow calf family farms are sadly dying a very unfortunate slow financial death and won't be around to provide you any shit. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jul 26, 2022 | 22:39 19 Nothing like just bashing an idea for trying to think outside the box. Not one person could listen to the O.P and play along. I'm quite certain he knows how life actually is, just trying to come up with some new constructive ideas to help our industry. Right or wrong, we need to start a conversation ourselves and figure things out for ourselves. Rest assured the government isn't gonna get it right! Reply With Quote

  • Jul 27, 2022 | 00:34 20 Sorry to have offended you forage. Not sure why you are so hung up on this one issue.


    We both agree that there is no profit in cattle the way it is done now.

    And I'm saying one of the easiest ways to cut fertilizer inputs is to keep the grain or hay etc. close to home, instead of exporting those nutrients. Beef Cattle aren't the only livestock. Pigs, chickens, dairy, turkeys, sheep, goats etc. Right now we export feed grain, hay, silage even to the middle east, China, Japan, Korea, etc. They don't return the nutrients,. Feeding those livestock here and exporting the finished product is the easiest loophole to close.

    We have cattle here, I spread my own manure, and have arrangements to get manure from many of my neighbors too. I can't count how many aspiring cattlemen I have as neighbors who can't compete for land, can't justify the cost of the feed, but they are working their tails off on farm and off farm to subsidize their dreams. I'm saying don't compete, work together. In my travels in western Canada, there is a huge amount of unused land within every grain farm that could be pasture, or hay. There is also huge amounts of chaff, straw, off grade grain, stubble, weeds, hailed/frozen/droughted/drowned out crops that don't get salvaged, and crop insurance only makes it worse. Cattle farming could actually be profitable if instead of renting or buying expensive pasture, and buying expensive inputs and diesel, and feeding most of the year, they use what is already going to waste. My cows rarely have the luxury of eating hay, let alone alfalfa hay. And they get fed for as little as 4 months of the year. They only get to pasture land that is completely unfit for cultivation. They eat silage from frozen or hailed crops, or greenfeed from hailed crops, or slough hay, or straw and off grade grain, and they graze stubble, they have eaten chaff in years past. When we no longer have cows, I will offer this same arrangement to anyone who is willing.

    If we really want farmers to go organic, then integrating livestock is a necessity. Accepting that not everyone wants to be married to cows 24/7, partnering with someone who does could be a good fit.

    I have said in the past that we started down the road to going organic. But this grey wooded soil is naturally devoid of all nutrients, it can't be mined for very long at all, so most of the production would need to go through a cow to keep the soil productive. I worked out how many cattle I would need to make efficient use of cover crops and how much hay would need to be in the rotation, and came up with a number of cows that was not at all appealling. Profitable, yes, but it would require multiple full time jobs to manage. Reply With Quote
    Jul 27, 2022 | 01:08 21
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Sorry to have offended you forage. Not sure why you are so hung up on this one issue.


    We both agree that there is no profit in cattle the way it is done now.

    And I'm saying one of the easiest ways to cut fertilizer inputs is to keep the grain or hay etc. close to home, instead of exporting those nutrients. Beef Cattle aren't the only livestock. Pigs, chickens, dairy, turkeys, sheep, goats etc. Right now we export feed grain, hay, silage even to the middle east, China, Japan, Korea, etc. They don't return the nutrients,. Feeding those livestock here and exporting the finished product is the easiest loophole to close.

    We have cattle here, I spread my own manure, and have arrangements to get manure from many of my neighbors too. I can't count how many aspiring cattlemen I have as neighbors who can't compete for land, can't justify the cost of the feed, but they are working their tails off on farm and off farm to subsidize their dreams. I'm saying don't compete, work together. In my travels in western Canada, there is a huge amount of unused land within every grain farm that could be pasture, or hay. There is also huge amounts of chaff, straw, off grade grain, stubble, weeds, hailed/frozen/droughted/drowned out crops that don't get salvaged, and crop insurance only makes it worse. Cattle farming could actually be profitable if instead of renting or buying expensive pasture, and buying expensive inputs and diesel, and feeding most of the year, they use what is already going to waste. My cows rarely have the luxury of eating hay, let alone alfalfa hay. And they get fed for as little as 4 months of the year. They only get to pasture land that is completely unfit for cultivation. They eat silage from frozen or hailed crops, or greenfeed from hailed crops, or slough hay, or straw and off grade grain, and they graze stubble, they have eaten chaff in years past. When we no longer have cows, I will offer this same arrangement to anyone who is willing.

    If we really want farmers to go organic, then integrating livestock is a necessity. Accepting that not everyone wants to be married to cows 24/7, partnering with someone who does could be a good fit.

    I have said in the past that we started down the road to going organic. But this grey wooded soil is naturally devoid of all nutrients, it can't be mined for very long at all, so most of the production would need to go through a cow to keep the soil productive. I worked out how many cattle I would need to make efficient use of cover crops and how much hay would need to be in the rotation, and came up with a number of cows that was not at all appealling. Profitable, yes, but it would require multiple full time jobs to manage.
    Figuring out how to convert n2 from the air, in: corn, cereals, canola, and flax, would help immensely. We are about 25% of the way there by the looks of new n2 fixing products.

    Saw an electric weed killer last night from the EU, they can 100% desiccate pre harvest now, about 3 years away by the looks of the machine 12m wide now... working on a 30m proto-type machine for N.A. this year. Was on RFD TV last night. Big Gen on the tractor.

    P2O5 from rock phosphate and crystal green plus; in products like Tag Team have been here for decades, hard to cut them by 30%... now...

    Pulses release Nox.. but they might let those emissions be exempt... perhaps...

    How we more effectively harvest and fix N from electrical lightning storms, into our crops needs serious research. Like I said earlier the Nox from big summer storms must be something wild... 'uncontrolled' releases of any amount of nh3 must by law be reported to provincial environment Dept.

    Sectional control helps some... but we already have deployed it some time ago on our farm.

    Blessings and Salutations. Reply With Quote

  • Jul 27, 2022 | 01:23 22
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM4CWB View Post
    Figuring out how to convert n2 from the air, in: corn, cereals, canola, and flax, would help immensely. We are about 25% of the way there by the looks of new n2 fixing products.

    Saw an electric weed killer last night from the EU, they can 100% desiccate pre harvest now, about 3 years away by the looks of the machine 12m wide now... working on a 30m proto-type machine for N.A. this year. Was on RFD TV last night. Big Gen on the tractor.

    P2O5 from rock phosphate and crystal green plus; in products like Tag Team have been here for decades, hard to cut them by 30%... now...

    Pulses release Nox.. but they might let those emissions be exempt... perhaps...

    How we more effectively harvest and fix N from electrical lightning storms, into our crops needs serious research. Like I said earlier the Nox from big summer storms must be something wild... 'uncontrolled' releases of any amount of nh3 must by law be reported to provincial environment Dept.

    Sectional control helps some... but we already have deployed it some time ago on our farm.

    Blessings and Salutations.
    I have thought for decades that there should be a way to kill the in soil germination pre-seeding which would resolve a big weed problem combined with he electric desiccation machine now coming. Reply With Quote
    Jul 27, 2022 | 04:35 23 Nutrient mining.

    This is the downfall of the cattle industry when hay price can't compete with grain price.

    I'd rather leave it stand than allow a ton of hay be hauled away from its field location, just on its fertilizer value this year. You could not synthetically replace it with the selling price that the cattle raiser could afford. Someone goes broke, and that is before you even consider the costs of harvesting the feed.

    On that type of trade alone, the government has the livestock industry checkmated. Reply With Quote

  • Jul 27, 2022 | 06:29 24
    Quote Originally Posted by WiltonRanch View Post
    Being that you are a “forage farmer” you would see firsthand the cow business has been shit for years. With mandated reductions in nitrogen use it is worrisome the cattle industry will be the baby thrown out with the bath water because of less grain grown. I seen cows were going nowhere 6 years ago and halved the herd. I do not regret it. Talking with a friend who is more gung ho about cows and he’s talking about halving his herd because it’s a money hemorrhage. Even $1800 steers this fall isn’t enough to wipe the stink off this industry.
    Hearing from a cattleman such as yourself spelling out the truth about the cow calf industry is exactly who needs to be heard from on this thread.

    My brother in-law in Sask. is seriously thinking of getting completely out, or a the very least cutting the herd in half.

    Why work your ass off 365 days a year and get screwed by the packers on up to the grocers.

    Another important factor really hurting the expansion of the beef is the the price consumers have to pay at the check out counter. It's getting to the point they can't afford beef and there is also the other meats competing with beef especially supply management who are guaranteed farm gate prices.

    If cow calf guys are pulling the pin, there goes the shit along with it.

    Sorry to those who are sensitive I'm just calling it as it is that is all. Why sugar coat it.
    Last edited by foragefarmer; Jul 27, 2022 at 06:47.
    Reply With Quote

  • fjlip's Avatar Jul 27, 2022 | 07:47 25
    Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
    another way ; compost liberals, then spread
    Everyone I know has the solution, but it can't be typed... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 27, 2022 | 07:50 26 https://regina.ctvnews.ca/no-consult...gets-1.6001991 Reply With Quote
    Jul 27, 2022 | 08:51 27 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
    Last edited by sawfly1; Jul 27, 2022 at 09:02.
    Reply With Quote

  • Jul 27, 2022 | 09:40 28
    Quote Originally Posted by sawfly1 View Post
    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
    Absolutely agree and well said Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jul 27, 2022 | 09:59 29
    Quote Originally Posted by sawfly1 View Post
    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 Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • helmsdale's Avatar Jul 27, 2022 | 10:46 30 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* Reply With Quote