fertilizer to conservative's questions

[TOM4CWB]

Wondering if some missed the commitment Liberals made to reduce Fertilizer use by 30%... by 2030... which is not a 2022 shortage supply price question / issue. With out sustainable soil nutrients- and replacement of them [nutrients] as we crop yearly... the movement to get rid of livestock production agriculture to reduce greenhouse gasses... is an outright failure to recognize food security...

Clearly 3rd world 'poor' people will suffer the greatest discrimination in food supply... killing them first.

War, famine, terrorism and disease from this intentional disruption in food security -30% nutrients by 2030 for farmers... COP 26 and the Climate Change elite are turning into cold blooded killers... if this goes ahead.

Cheers

Please read this… it isn’t talking about 2022, short term production problems.


“ Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer
Analysis of Potential Direct Financial Impacts on Canadian Farmers’ Fertilizer Use - Macro Analysis
Prepared for Fertilizer Canada
SUITE 1200, 242 HARGRAVE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R3C 0T8 T: 204.775.4531 F: 204.783.8329 MNP.ca

Executive Summary
Under Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan, the government of Canada is envisioning a 30% reduction in absolute emissions by the year 2030. That would include chemical fertilizer reductions used in crop production by Canadian farmers to achieve their part of those targets. In order to achieve that, one existing measure of the magnitude of actual reduction in agricultural fertilizer use would be the model proposed under the EU Green Deal which cites an actual reduction of 20% in fertilizer use compared to 2020 levels. MNP LLP was engaged by Fertilizer Canada to analyze the direct macro financial impact of lost production and has modeled a 20% rate reduction starting in 2023 and the effect on farmer output until 2030.
To meet these reductions, there may be adjustments forced on farmers’ practices that will have varying degrees of net impact on farmers. This report is however based on the assumptions of continued farming practices (including crop rotation) as they are today to reflect the possibility of farmers accepting the lower production that lost nutrients would have on the production levels of their crops. The assumptions of this report summarize that effect by simply reducing the crop output and thereby presuming there is a direct correlation between available nutrients and loss in fertilizer use and impact on crop production. The analysis is focused on the effects for corn, canola, and spring wheat in Canada (three major crops that make up a major share of Canadian small grain/oilseed production), and is based on a similar number of acres for the three crops using the 5-year average, a straight-line reduction of fertilizer use starting in the year 2023 along with a straight-line reduction in yield based on industry yield response estimates for each crop, no inflation effects, and no effects of reduced crop supplies on crop prices until 2030.
A straight-line reduction in fertilizer usage results in increased differences of actual yields versus potential yields if the status quo had been continued. By 2030, yield gaps for the three crops are estimated at 23.6 bushels per acre per year for canola, 67.9 bushels per acre per year for corn, and 36.1 per acre per year bushels per acre for spring wheat. Given constant prices, the total value of lost production grows to 10.4 billion per year by 2030 and across the years 2023 to 2030 is shown for each crop as follows:
Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer – Analysis of Potential Direct Financial Impacts on Canadian Farmers’ Fertilizer Use 4

The estimated lost production has significant effects on Canada’s ability to fill domestic processing capacity (e.g., canola crushing facilities) as well as export capacity. Assuming that domestic capacity will be filled first, it is estimated that by 2030 most Canadian exports of canola will not exist (only 750,000 metric tonnes of canola will be theoretically available for export compared to more than 10 million metric tonnes today). The reduction in annual spring wheat exports is estimated to be 4.2 million metric tonnes by 2030. The analysis for the three crops, as well as any potential impacts for other crops, will significantly impact Canada’s ability to reach its targets for domestic sales and exports of agri-food products and thereby have a major detriment to the Canadian agri-food economy. Finally, reducing Canada’s contribution to the global food supply by more than 14 million metric tonnes collectively of wheat and canola per year by 2030 would have a major impact on the global supply of food in the future. There are lots of ways farmers can react to potential economic impacts of reduced fertilizer use, including acceptance of lower productivity. This would be devastating, such that any plan to reduce carbon emissions would need to be done in a way that the future productivity of major crops is maintained.”

[SASKFARMER]

I have to ask some of you that are for the fertilizer companies


DO ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A POT TO PISS IN?

[bucket]

Please read this… it isn’t talking about 2022, short term production problems.


“ Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer
Analysis of Potential Direct Financial Impacts on Canadian Farmers’ Fertilizer Use - Macro Analysis
Prepared for Fertilizer Canada
SUITE 1200, 242 HARGRAVE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R3C 0T8 T: 204.775.4531 F: 204.783.8329 MNP.ca

Executive Summary
Under Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan, the government of Canada is envisioning a 30% reduction in absolute emissions by the year 2030. That would include chemical fertilizer reductions used in crop production by Canadian farmers to achieve their part of those targets. In order to achieve that, one existing measure of the magnitude of actual reduction in agricultural fertilizer use would be the model proposed under the EU Green Deal which cites an actual reduction of 20% in fertilizer use compared to 2020 levels. MNP LLP was engaged by Fertilizer Canada to analyze the direct macro financial impact of lost production and has modeled a 20% rate reduction starting in 2023 and the effect on farmer output until 2030.
To meet these reductions, there may be adjustments forced on farmers’ practices that will have varying degrees of net impact on farmers. This report is however based on the assumptions of continued farming practices (including crop rotation) as they are today to reflect the possibility of farmers accepting the lower production that lost nutrients would have on the production levels of their crops. The assumptions of this report summarize that effect by simply reducing the crop output and thereby presuming there is a direct correlation between available nutrients and loss in fertilizer use and impact on crop production. The analysis is focused on the effects for corn, canola, and spring wheat in Canada (three major crops that make up a major share of Canadian small grain/oilseed production), and is based on a similar number of acres for the three crops using the 5-year average, a straight-line reduction of fertilizer use starting in the year 2023 along with a straight-line reduction in yield based on industry yield response estimates for each crop, no inflation effects, and no effects of reduced crop supplies on crop prices until 2030.
A straight-line reduction in fertilizer usage results in increased differences of actual yields versus potential yields if the status quo had been continued. By 2030, yield gaps for the three crops are estimated at 23.6 bushels per acre per year for canola, 67.9 bushels per acre per year for corn, and 36.1 per acre per year bushels per acre for spring wheat. Given constant prices, the total value of lost production grows to 10.4 billion per year by 2030 and across the years 2023 to 2030 is shown for each crop as follows:
Implications of a Total Emissions Reduction Target on Fertilizer – Analysis of Potential Direct Financial Impacts on Canadian Farmers’ Fertilizer Use 4

The estimated lost production has significant effects on Canada’s ability to fill domestic processing capacity (e.g., canola crushing facilities) as well as export capacity. Assuming that domestic capacity will be filled first, it is estimated that by 2030 most Canadian exports of canola will not exist (only 750,000 metric tonnes of canola will be theoretically available for export compared to more than 10 million metric tonnes today). The reduction in annual spring wheat exports is estimated to be 4.2 million metric tonnes by 2030. The analysis for the three crops, as well as any potential impacts for other crops, will significantly impact Canada’s ability to reach its targets for domestic sales and exports of agri-food products and thereby have a major detriment to the Canadian agri-food economy. Finally, reducing Canada’s contribution to the global food supply by more than 14 million metric tonnes collectively of wheat and canola per year by 2030 would have a major impact on the global supply of food in the future. There are lots of ways farmers can react to potential economic impacts of reduced fertilizer use, including acceptance of lower productivity. This would be devastating, such that any plan to reduce carbon emissions would need to be done in a way that the future productivity of major crops is maintained.”

All while Russia and China take market share?

[foragefarmer]

I have to ask some of you that are for the fertilizer companies


DO ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A POT TO PISS IN?

Not defending Fertilizer companies at all. I just realized after my dealer advised me in August that there was going to be a spike in fertilizer prices due to a global shortage and to buy as soon as possible I had to take action. So I took my Fertilizer's dealer advice and bought right there and then and saved a tonne of money. If I could get this information, sure as shit anybody else on Agrivlle could get the same information from their Fertilizer dealer as well.


In fact I stated on a couple of Fertilizer threads on Agriville in early September that my dealer was warning about a Fertilizer shortage and that prices were going to go through the roof.


Now you come on Agriville bitching and whining as usual on your little Friday rants, that your getting screwed over on Fertilizer prices and everybody should feel sorry for you.

Poor you, your the only farmer out there having a tough go at farming with expenses going through the roof and poor crops



DON'T WORRY ABOUT MY POT, I KNOW WHAT I HAVE IN IT AND I DON'T NEED TO SHARE IT ON AGRIVILLE LOOKING FOR APPROVAL LIKE YOU DO GOLDEN SPOON BOY.

[bucket]

Forage , your comment

In fact I stated on a couple of Fertilizer threads on Agriville in early September that my dealer was warning about a Fertilizer shortage and that prices were going to go through the roof.

They say that every year.

And why didn't the retails load up at 700bucks?And improve their margins to resell at 900 or higher?

Some retails sitting empty so did they really believe the story?

[jazz]

Whats the solution bucket? Price controls. If they do that to fertilizer, they can do it for canola too.

They may be gouging, who knows, but price is always the signal for a correction.

Farmers are jizzing themselves over these crop prices. Some land just traded for $900K a quarter near me.

IMO chasing the tops is not a smart strategy. We ordered what we could for a still reasonable price. If its still that high next year, a different production plan will be needed.

And we should be getting prepared for the feds fertilizer mandate. We cant fight anything in this country, so best be prepared for it.

[bucket]

There is an incredible difference between fertilizer production and canola production.

Fertilizer can be made every day with no impact from rain wind heat cold dry.

Incredible difference.

[jazz]

There is an incredible difference between fertilizer production and canola production.

Ferilzercam be made every day with no impact from rain wind heat cold dry.

Incredible difference.

But in this day and age, facts dont matter, feelings do. And there are only a couple hundred thousand farmers and 37M people who buy groceries.

If the narrative gets going that farmers are to blame, just like oil companies are for energy, then the clueless voter will win that argument everytime.

I dont think we should open that door to price controls. That could blowback badly.

I asked my ag rep what would be the consequences of going back to back lentils one year. 25% yield reduction and at least another pass of fungicide. That might be a better options for some than laying out 1500 for urea now.

[Hamloc]

One of the election planks of the Federal Liberals was to increase Agricultural exports. I am very curious how they believe we can increase agricultural production and at the same time decrease fertilizer use by 30% at the same time?!

[blackpowder]

And there are only a couple hundred thousand farmers and 37M people who buy groceries.


Probably divide that number by 10 to get the number who really buy any amount of fertilizer.