So...there you have it...Ag ministers promise no immediate help

[bucket]

For your fantesy purposes, let's say governments did an ad hoc ag payment. Those that don't require it (net income too high) could be subject to the same clawback provision that exist in the senior citizen class like the non refundable tax credit for age, like OAS, like...

I don't know about the rest of you, but I find it futile to spend like crazy to avoid income tax. The last thing I want is more stuff to put a cover over because the governments sent me an ad hoc ag payment.

If I take anything out of agriville sage, it will be the quote about, "would it not be nice, if it just didn't matter".

They are giving an ad hoc payment to irrigation districts 40 bucks an acre for 5 years and that won't end....

Guaranteed crop and they get subsidized....every year. .....100000 acres off lake diefenbaker so about 4 million every year...because the irrigator says he can't afford it on his own. ...hmmmmm interesting....

And those guys have their sheds full of new equipment....

[the big wheel]

They are giving an ad hoc payment to irrigation districts 40 bucks an acre for 5 years and that won't end....

Guaranteed crop and they get subsidized....every year. .....100000 acres off lake diefenbaker so about 4 million every year...because the irrigator says he can't afford it on his own. ...hmmmmm interesting....

And those guys have their sheds full of new equipment....

That’s why we can’t vote ndp!!!!! Lol

[checking]

I want you to know, bucket, that you are one of the good men from the triffid days.

If one of the reason that Lake Diefenbaker was created was for 100,000 acres of irrigation, then I guess the mandate was fulfilled with a subsidy payment of $40/acre. Did someone try $30/acre, and find the objective would never be reached?

Was irrigation potential the last piece required to make the project outweigh its detractions, or was the stopping of ice damage to property in Saskatoon enough on its own merits to create the Lake? Did those property owners receive any benefit from this subsidy, that bucket did not?

Did your town receive a reliable water supply that some town beyond the Lake's reach did not? Does that mean you/me are owed something?

When does bucket's turn come. Well, it will likely be that life is a bitch, and then you die. In the meantime, buck up, or trade up to the subsidy haven.

[bucket]

I want you to know, bucket, that you are one of the good men from the triffid days.

If one of the reason that Lake Diefenbaker was created was for 100,000 acres of irrigation, then I guess the mandate was fulfilled with a subsidy payment of $40/acre. Did someone try $30/acre, and find the objective would never be reached?

Was irrigation potential the last piece required to make the project outweigh its detractions, or was the stopping of ice damage to property in Saskatoon enough on its own merits to create the Lake? Did those property owners receive any benefit from this subsidy, that bucket did not?

Did your town receive a reliable water supply that some town beyond the Lake's reach did not? Does that mean you/me are owed something?

When does bucket's turn come. Well, it will likely be that life is a bitch, and then you die. In the meantime, buck up, or trade up to the subsidy haven.

Fair comments but let me be clear....I am not against irrigation or water for the greater good.....

What I am against is the way that it is funded....If you tell me that an irrigation project will pay and be profitable ...fair...then those benefitting should have no problem paying for it as well...

I can tell you there is a pump house feeding the irrigation lines and out of the same pump house is a pump that feeds the village of Riverhurst....provides water year round to the village's water treatment plant...same water going into the pivots as what is supplied to the water treatment plant...

Here is where is gets a little odd... The village of Riverhurst pays by the 1000 gallons while the irrigator is paying by the acre foot....and the irrigator is subsidized 40 bucks an acre....same water...

I asked once why that is the case ...everyone at the table just shrugged and said that the way it is....well its ****ing stupid...

I also don't mind that the pivots are there and I also fully understand why the lake was created...It feeds 75 percent of the water for the people of saskatchewan for Saskatoon regina Moose Jaw etc etc.

It also feeds the province's Potash Industry....all good.

But what part of the problem is we are fully utilizing the potential of growing very high value crops from it...I find that disappointing and to go forward with more without putting a performance standard is poor planning....

There also has to be another look at the changes in farming practices before we keep on the mantra of irrigation will save us...because to date its the farming practices that have done more than the potential to irrigate unless you are growing those higher value crops...and some are doing it without irrigation....

Sure when you look back 40 years and see the farm at a 50/50 rotation irrigation makes sense but have a good hard look at what has changed since then and understand which farmers are the economic drivers....

Just a rambling....I don't think much....it hurts...

[macdon02]

Fair comments but let me be clear....I am not against irrigation or water for the greater good.....

What I am against is the way that it is funded....If you tell me that an irrigation project will pay and be profitable ...fair...then those benefitting should have no problem paying for it as well...

I can tell you there is a pump house feeding the irrigation lines and out of the same pump house is a pump that feeds the village of Riverhurst....provides water year round to the village's water treatment plant...same water going into the pivots as what is supplied to the water treatment plant...

Here is where is gets a little odd... The village of Riverhurst pays by the 1000 gallons while the irrigator is paying by the acre foot....and the irrigator is subsidized 40 bucks an acre....same water...

I asked once why that is the case ...everyone at the table just shrugged and said that the way it is....well its ****ing stupid...

I also don't mind that the pivots are there and I also fully understand why the lake was created...It feeds 75 percent of the water for the people of saskatchewan for Saskatoon regina Moose Jaw etc etc.

It also feeds the province's Potash Industry....all good.

But what part of the problem is we are fully utilizing the potential of growing very high value crops from it...I find that disappointing and to go forward with more without putting a performance standard is poor planning....

There also has to be another look at the changes in farming practices before we keep on the mantra of irrigation will save us...because to date its the farming practices that have done more than the potential to irrigate unless you are growing those higher value crops...and some are doing it without irrigation....

Sure when you look back 40 years and see the farm at a 50/50 rotation irrigation makes sense but have a good hard look at what has changed since then and understand which farmers are the economic drivers....

Just a rambling....I don't think much....it hurts...

Irrigated canola burns just fine, i don't have any, but saw lots getting the match when soil sampling spring of 05

[bucket]

Irrigated canola burns just fine, i don't have any, but saw lots getting the match when soil sampling spring of 05

Canola under irrigation ....it doesn't even make sense if you had to pay for the infrastructure....there are people growing better canola crops on drylands in the Kamsack area....

And on a dry year it don't matter how many circles you put on...mother nature can still blast the flowers...and reduce yield...Plus to get that yield these guys are spending more than the guys at Kamsack to get the crop...

irrigation water charges, on farm pivot costs, labour etc etc...

The sad part is guys that can grow a 40 bpa canola crop think they are gaining by getting a 60 bpa crop under irrigation...

Let me ask this question....is paying 150k a quarter to get 20bpa on farmland a good business plan?

With irrigation you are only picking up the spread between what you are already able to produce on the dryland....

Some guys don't realize that...

[farmaholic]

Just a rambling....I don't think much....it hurts...

https://youtu.be/OO-i4X2cleA

For you bucket.

[farmaholic]

[mcfarms]

I'm not sure what the numbers would be in sk but in Alberta a recent study put the ROI for investments in irrigation by the province at about 1 to 3. That is for every dollar invested by the province they saw a revenue return of 3. I'd say that's a pretty strong rate of return, full disclosure there's a few pivots on this place and I'd say long term ROI is around 5 to 7 percent but here's other intangibles such as feed stability for the livestock, as well as the ability to maintain security of supply with end users which allows stable relationship and long term contracts hedging risk also development of other crops and economic possibilities outside traditional haul and dump markets. We aren't in the highest heat unit areas but have everything from grazing corn to ornamental plants being grown in a 10 mile radius none of which would happen with the ability to irrigate it can have a pretty huge impact in this area.
As land prices have increased here the economics on irrigation have made more sense as you need to try and do ask much as poss to generate revenue from the land I'd say based on sales this last year there's somewhere between a 40 to 50 perent premium for irrigated with a system on it over dryland. The district here fully subscribed and is charging around 750 dollars an acre for permanent rights if they ever get some bought back from people and there's a lineup for them.

[blackpowder]

How many spin off dollars has the AB economy seen since irrigation came in.
Jobs?
Yes, cheaper to do then.
No, one set of ratepayers shouldnt pay for it, it benefits all.
No, the govt shouldn't buy the processing.
Question.
Is there more to the story when comparing AB to Sask on irrigation??
Why do we have feedlot alley and all that processing and specialty stuff?
Has to be more than Sask politics.
Heat units?, transportation? Economics?
Why hasn't Outlook changed in decades?
Maybe let the Chinese do it next century?