How we could actually cut fertilizer and not cut production.

[Blaithin]

Here is a crazy idea. Try feeding the alfalfa pellets to a cow or sheep etc. and get all the same nutrients out the other end, in a more usable form, and get the value added step of growing meat to sell.

You’ve seen the kickback here from some on how they feel about sullying themselves with livestock. They aren’t interested (which is fine)

Livestock are integral and great but that doesn’t and shouldn’t mean everyone needs to deal with them. Also huge logistical drama to get manure out to fields and spread. Again, ideally the animals are there and doing the spreading for you, but that doesn’t frequently happen, so we do it. Pile up condensed manure, transport it to a field, spread it.

Transportation. Emissions. Compaction. Sometimes even poorly timed application and leeching. Also risks of negative soil microbe impacts and introduction of pests.

Manure can be great. Manure can also be a lot of work.

If someone isn’t interested in:
A) Having or utilizing livestock on their land.
B) Purchasing manure, equipment, or contractors to spread it.

or maybe they
C) Can’t access enough manure for their requirements.

Then perhaps alternatives like direct application of pellets can fill a gap and help. It should never be about one or the other, or one or two methods. It could and should be about more of a little of everything. Dry fertilizer, liquid fertilizer, animal manure, human refuse/compost, green manure… there are a lot of options available to farmers, no reason we should be focusing on only one or two them.

One or two leaves you more vulnerable to political intrigue legislation that is all talk, little reality.

Besides, livestock can make manure out of any poor forage, they don’t NEED to use something than can potentially work well when applied directly. Can get more available fertilizer by using both.

[Sheepwheat]

I have lots of ideas and theories and things I have put into practice on my farm. Most here either don’t believe it works, or disregard new ideas. So this time I will just stay quiet.

Interesting thread. Too bad most have this attitude that farming differently is pretty much impossible. It isn’t.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I haven't done the math or looked up the analysis of alfalfa pellets, so I could be wrong. But I would highly doubt that the economics of using them as fertilizer would be positive. The farmer who grew the alfalfa still had to buy the potash and phosphorus and sulfur and micronutrients. there was a lot of fuel involved in growing and putting up the hay,energy required to transport and dehydrating and chopping and making pellets and transporting again. Lot of middle men involved making a profit. The nitrogen may have been almost free to grow the alfalfa, but I'm not convinced that would outweigh the rest of the expenses.
I Also don't like the idea of spending all the time and fuel and energy to be feeding and stockpiling manure and spreading manure and incorporating manure. Just eliminate all those middle steps, plant a legume, then intensive graze livestock on it for a few years, then grow crops without any additional nitrogen required. If this movement actually had anything to do with saving the environment that would be about the only sustainable solution.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I have lots of ideas and theories and things I have put into practice on my farm. Most here either don’t believe it works, or disregard new ideas. So this time I will just stay quiet.

Interesting thread. Too bad most have this attitude that farming differently is pretty much impossible. It isn’t.

I keep an open mind to any and all ideas. I try as many as I can myself.

Different economic times make different ideas viable or not. In so many ways, recent years of decent profit margins and high priced land and fuel have made many sustainable practices no longer economically sustainable. If land were nearly free and profit margins slim to none, it would be a lot more environmentally sustainable practices being implemented. Out of necessity. High land prices and high stakes dictate that maximizing production per acre is priority rather than minimizing inputs.

I often think that if I had to choose, I would rather Farm in the lean times. So many more opportunities. Having spent my formative years in such an environment, my business sense is far more suited to that.

[Blaithin]

I haven't done the math or looked up the analysis of alfalfa pellets, so I could be wrong. But I would highly doubt that the economics of using them as fertilizer would be positive. The farmer who grew the alfalfa still had to buy the potash and phosphorus and sulfur and micronutrients. there was a lot of fuel involved in growing and putting up the hay,energy required to transport and dehydrating and chopping and making pellets and transporting again. Lot of middle men involved making a profit. The nitrogen may have been almost free to grow the alfalfa, but I'm not convinced that would outweigh the rest of the expenses.
I Also don't like the idea of spending all the time and fuel and energy to be feeding and stockpiling manure and spreading manure and incorporating manure. Just eliminate all those middle steps, plant a legume, then intensive graze livestock on it for a few years, then grow crops without any additional nitrogen required. If this movement actually had anything to do with saving the environment that would be about the only sustainable solution.

There’s ideal scenario - like using livestock as part of a crop rotation.

Then there’s reality.

Reality currently needs to look for alternate sources to try and integrate. Most are not anywhere near implementing that ideal type scenario, primarily because ideal in one way does not mean ideal in other ways.

The movement - by actual people interested in the environment - is almost exactly what you describe. But the political movement has too many layers of partnerships to be that cut and dried and logical. Then there’s the movement of the farmers who have no interest in being that kind of environmentally sustainable. They are working on economic sustainability and feel the two are not compatible, they are as environmentally friendly now as they ever feel they need to be.

Too many personalities, too many different goals, too many different variables; that’s why there needs to be more options to use as answers. Not less.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Very well said. At the end of the day, economic sustainability trump's any other longer term sustainability.
I did an environmental farm plan a few years ago. I was completely honest about drainage and removing trees and wildlife habitat.
Because I have had to buy all of the land we Farm at modern values, every acre has to pay for itself. Losing crop to drown outs and tree roots and wildlife damage are not economically sustainable practices. So I do everything I can to prevent those losses.
I justified those actions in the farm plan by explaining that if I'm not economically sustainable, and go out of business, then all of the other environmentally sustainable practices we do apply(no till, integrating livestock, responsible and minimal fertilizer and chemical application, Etc), are for nothing, if whoever takes over the land next does not follow the same practices.

The person accepting the plan agreed completely.

I have often suggested that capitalism is a very poor fit for farming. Squeezing the producer with prices that trend towards the cost of production of the lowest cost producer can only result in short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability. Not a good model for maintaining our most precious resource, topsoil. We should all be thinking about what is best for the land 100 years from now, not how to keep the banker happy 6 months from now.
Although I am quite certain that any other economic model or government meddling could only make it worse judging by past history.

[shtferbrains]

Pig barns must fit this model as the manure is applied under ground and adds locally produced nutrients. Although it is in fact a nutrient transfer from someone else's fields.
No one wants to live near a pig barn but everyone would like to have land near one.


The problem with government initiatives is that if the program is a failure they expand it in attempting to correct it.
If the program is at all successful and provides income incentives they cancel it.

[furrowtickler]

Reaction from Western Canada premiers

https://youtu.be/jyMl0OwoRV8

Trudeau will ignore any opposition and push forward with the U.N. / WEF driven policy , he answers to them , not Canadians.

[6V53]

K.I.S.S. Get some alfalfa seed and a tandem disc and cut out the middle man.

[WiltonRanch]

Just cutting my fertilizer reduction strategy right now. It only works if it rains enough. Usually we get enough rain to make a crop. Some years just that or a bit less and anything extra could be detrimental to the water supply unless land is taken out of production for a period of time for a green manure or fallow. Made sense when land was under $100000 a quarter but 4 to 5 times that and economically you’ll eventually go under unless you can derive some more economic benefit like grazing or forage. However, for it to be sustainable long term any of that growth must stay on that land as is or passed through a cows bowels. What government is preaching may work for smaller mixed farms which present economics and government do not seem to actively support. If they were serious about a more sustainable system with lower emissions a massive shift in diet and less reliance on foreign imports, and less exports of food would be in order. Agribusiness would essentially have to contract to 50% or less of what it is now, and government would essentially need to subsidize like before nafta in order to keep people on the land. It’s a no go and we’d end up having to import more from the Americans while our exports would be backfilled by Russia. I swear some days Russia is probably funding this bs like anti pipeline groups.