Cliven Bundy

[SASKFARMER3]

One supper varieties that can get higher than last year. We will see. Canola should be at a 100 and not seed cost a acre.
Plus if we get to producing all this grain with super varieties where the hell will we ship it if every one doesn't get the shipping shit show sorted out.

[charliep]

SK3

Perhaps I am wrong but as good managers today, farmers have a choice in where they spend their money on the varieties of seed that fit their farm. Are you saying as an industry we should limit our investment in plant breeding to limit production? What does that say about western Canada's competitiveness in the future in a world of growing demand (population, improving income, urbanization, changing diets, etc) and greater production potential in other exporting countries (South America, Eastern European countries, etc.)?

[SASKFARMER3]

No if some one actually can produce a variety that can do better than last year each and every year by more than 25% ill pay for it. What I am saying is if the Middle man the railways and elevator companies don't get their shit show in place growing that big of a crop will leave us with the same problem as this past winter over and over.
Also another problem is emptying Alberta then Manitoba and leaving sask with no rail service. I had contracts in place for #2 13.5 grain and had bags full of #1 13.5 to 14.7 yet they took grain in Alberta over filling our orders. If the new rules work we should be compensated for delays.

[charliep]

The assumption is higher yields are all that comes out plant breeding. Plant breeding is also about dealing with everyday agronomic issues in world variable weather and pests which adapt to new situations/impact production. I think (everyone else will tell me I am wrong) there be more opportunties to develop crops with specific consumer traits in mind.

I note all the conversation elsewhere about using glyphosate/other descicants to even out maturity so a farmer can straight combine wheat. What about looking at traits in wheat that allow more even maturity.

[SASKFARMER3]

Yes its a great big world but I still believe we will destroy Wheat like Canola. Big winners are the seed company. Yield No better but yes can spray with Liberty or RR so weed control is better. Now maybe strait cut but time will tell.

[FarmRanger]

<i>"I still believe we will destroy Wheat like Canola"</i>

over 20 Million acres last year. Not sure that I agree with your definition of "destroy"?

[charliep]

Someone will have to help understand better. Budgets I look (realizing averages/not real farms) put canola in the top of crops. Farmers continue to push canola in rotations not because its the right thing to do but because it pays the bills. Average yields have been increasing at a faster rate than other crops.

Canola growth in production has been driven by the demand side. Our challenges this year are lack of transportation capacity - not lack of customers.

At the end of the day, the choice of crops by farmers and their rotations. The answer to better canola rotations is higher profit potential in cereals. The question is how farmers invest in things like plant breeding to make this happen.

[SASKFARMER3]

The Guys who have been growing it for years no
real yield advantage now cleaner crops. Ok up
slightly but we had big yields years ago! It's now a
crop that works in the brown soil zone! We will
see how we'll in Normal growing years!
Now the big problem the old varieties were
delisted so can't try growing them with today's
fertilizer sprays and disease control! I still bet not
that much lower!
That's the fear no big yield advantage but huge
seed cost!

[blackpowder]

Thoughts on a solution?

[Hopalong]

The idea that if we all produced less, prices would
go up and we would all be better off, has been
around for a long time and is popular among NFU
members. There is a suggestion that investment
and research to improve productivity is a bad
thing for growers. The idea does not hold water.
Crop production is a basis for civilization and
unless we are to stand still or go backward, we
have to continue to improve it.
Debate has to be over how to fund research and
innovation, not over whether it is restricted in
order to benefit a few.