Are we too far gone politically biased to even accept facts of whats good or bad?

[LEP]

I think it is true our fed gov hasnt been receptive or recognized our efforts. But has our provincial govs done anything meaningful either?
and have we done enough to get the message of what we do out there? Most non farmers have no clue how good a job we produce the food they eat compared to many countries practices. Is it more convenient to say look we tried to tell them but they dont want to listen so vote for me? in other words has our oppostion been pleased that the message hasnt been recieved? And in fact none of our political parties give a rats ass
what we do or how we get compensated?

Which begs the question who should be stating what we re doing and what kind of policy we should have or not? I dont see any farm groups at all hammerring home how much of a positive impact our actions have had on the environment. Should it be taught in school, should it be on the TV commercials or ag talk shows?

Is there any effective carbon progams available to compensate, I dont even know I had signed up years ago but it turned out to be pretty much a waste of time. This is all assuming carbon is bad? Why hasnt there been a much more indepth discussion about that so that were all clear whats bad and whats not? I would suggest because politically its better we dont know the answer so games can be played for votes?

Actually the provincial government funded a study by the Global Food Institute to study the emissions of various crops, livestock and also industries (ie. potash, oil and gas) compared to our competitors around the world. The Province was saying it isn't good enough for the Feds or environmental groups to just say your emissions need to be cut by X%. Instead the provincial government wanted to be able to say because the Canadian carbon footprint is lower than our competitors, World emissions drop if there is more Canadian production instead of less.

Anyway they found that Canadian production to be between 25 and 30% less than our competitors around the world. That is what they took to COP28 to present.

Funny how the media hasn't wanted to report that though.

[WiltonRanch]

Good discussion. We’ve worked to cut emissions by virtue of reducing costs to compete with competitors being that we have a long difficult distance to ports. I keep cattle around to justify keeping land in grass and the biological diversity they promote. Present powers don’t have a bloody clue of the intrinsic benefits and synergies from this. Every farmer adapts to their land or tries to adapt the land. At the end of the day the almighty dollar prevails and that essentially measures success. Government mandates are as bad as one high priced crop everyone tries to grow to frequently. Question is how do you encourage balance? Odd this has progressed this long without the usual suspect derailing it.

[Druther]

Did anyone notice that the disease in the crops showed up at the same time as fungicides???

[WiltonRanch]

Did anyone notice that the disease in the crops showed up at the same time as fungicides???

lol. Maybe it was a hammer looking for a nail. This is my opinion and just that but the prophylactic use of fungicides is our undoing. I will use them if enough disease pressure is there. If not they stay at the retail.

[the big wheel]

It would be interesting to see how many farms are actually doing these things to reduce nitrogen use? I know pulses help but as furrow mentioned disease in wet years is such a huge risk, im surprised plant breeding hasnt been focused on that problem.
What biologicals are the best to use? and how?

On the carbon issue we turned down supplying energy to countries that instead rely on the murdering lunatic Putin and Iran etc when to my knowledge we produce a cleaner product so wouldnt that make sense on multiple fronts for us to be the supplier. Then on the other side of the coin our Sask and Alta current govs pretty much are in the camp that carbon is not an issue and yet weve spent over a billion and continue to here in sask for carbon capture and alta is proposing 11 billion dollar carbon capture development. So the question obviously is why if you think carbon is not harmful?

Further on carbon tax what is the real cost? Both sides are so extreme in their numbers that its not even close so somoene isnt being truthful.
Is there carbon tax on farm fuel? that we dont see?
Is there rebates for drying fuel for carbon tax?
what percent is carbon tax on grocderies? grain going down almost half in some instances yet bread and other products still going up so whats the cause?