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

[the big wheel]

So lets face it to me appears that in general weve become so filled with hate and opposition to each others political views that not only is discussion out the window but so are acceptance or even cosideration of whats good and whats bad for us as an industry even when we have facts never mind when we usually dont.

As we all know there are 2 camps on the climate change idea it has become the major election issue even though I dont actually believe it should be. One example that really
highlighted this was when I read on Johnsons marketing daily subscription about their
promoting of the use of different practices to reduce mainly nitrogen use. I would like to applaud them for doing this provided that the things they are promoting actually work. Having said that I also listenned the other day to the radio and the talk was about how our
governemt in Canada is forcing us farmers to reduce nitrogen use??? First are they forcing us to reduce nitrogen did I miss something? Or was that commentator stoking the political hate card because he kept asking the question to farmers and mainly his contributors were well known rightwinged politically are farmers going to start massive protests over this issue???

So instead of instantly hating anyone for proposing other methods to reduce nitrogen use my question is do these things work? Have you used biologicals and cover crops rotated pulses etc in an effective way to reduce over all nitrogen rates? I have tried it the last few years but due to our drought there really wasnt any way to tell since an inch of rain would
have made 1000% difference to see anything work.

[furrowtickler]

We had the pulse rotations all embedded years and years ago . Reduced out N rates probably by 40% . Had 30 % pulses in , and had reduced rates of N on those pulse acres the following year .
then the root rots came along , and blew all that up . There has been very little breeding effort into root rots yet winter pulses in Europe have been resistant for over a decade ?
up till now Seed treatments are mostly ineffective and extremely costly .

[furrowtickler]

Tried soybeans , but just too inconsistent in many areas .
Same as faba beans , great alternative but they need good moisture and when the soil profile is dry it’s a loosing cause as well for dryer areas .
Cover crops , well same issue , if there is not enough moisture for a spring crop , cover crops will just make things even worse
there is biologicals out there to help N uptake but they need time yet to become viable

[jamesb]

This conversation went ugly right from the start. First of all, when you have a real disconnect from the current federal govt to the western farm gate level, there is literally no meaningful conversation. In my view a total ignorance of modern western agriculture and a need to be continuously virtue signally makes for ugly consequences.
All the improvements that we have made in farming efficiency over the past 25 years is ignored or dismissed. We have a long way to go to get back to a position where meaningful discussions can take place. Zone soil sampling, vari rate fertilizer use, coated fertilizers, direct seeding, increased pulse acres, the list goes on and on .

[blackpowder]

The top post has two parts.
We need to be more aware when we speak. And more intelligent when we listen. Insertion of catch words and phrases in all communications seems to have taken the place of critical thinking and reproach.
Which leads to the fertilizer.
Our industry has been asleep for 80 years. If we don't start spending a lot more attention and money on policy we will pay dearly at the feet of those catch words.
If we need help pulling our head out of our arse, study the effectiveness of the dairy lobby.
At least the govt stance on fert has moderated a little in two years.
Thanks more to Fertilizer Canada than any one farmer group.

[goalieguy847]

I remember when the " govt going to ban fertilizer in canada" blah blah came out. Everyone picked up on it ....quick dick mcwhatever his idiotic name is sure did, so did various other dumbasses and all that did was stoke the political hatefire. Got all of us up in arms about taking our fertilizer away... " they tooook yerrrr jobsss" ( southpark).

Meaningful conversations have to be a 2 way street... look at this forum for example. Chuck chuck and some of you guys go at it instead of discussing the issues at hand... usually slips into a childhood namecalling contest ( ive been guilty of it too on my pissy days.... 3 little kids take alot of my patience).

I feel like the hatred for the current federal govt is so strong that even if they did something incredible for farmers it would be poopood on. Which really says something about the poor job that trudeau has done with the ag profile in canada. Hes burnt alot of our marketing bridges and has sideskirted so many opportunities to make things better for farmers and ag in canada.

NOW as farmers...have we overreacted to this fertilizer issue? Probably... but its certainly something to keep our eyes on.


Like.james said above... we have a longgggg way to go before any meaningful conversations can be had....
until we can sit down at a table together and be reasonable ( farmer to farmer interaction included) its just going to be knee jerk reactions and angered vitriol.

[furrowtickler]

Good post goalie
it is frustrating when you see and hear things like “we should look into pulse crops as a way to mitigate nitrogen use”
well many of us have been or were doing that 20 plus years ago before many of those suggesting this miracle agronomy where even in high school .
many of us would love to get back to that , but without a concerted effort to mitigate fusarium and aphenomisis (sp) is properly addressed, it’s a lost cause in 70% of western Canada . Being pushed to 8-10 years is not feasible in N reduction anymore .
it’s like they past 20 years of balanced agronomy most did has been completely ignored or dismissed.
no doubt it was not promoted as being “green” or climate saving back then , so it’s been kinda lost in translation by us and the industry.
The vast majority of us would love to go back to those days and cut 30-40% of the N Fertilizer days
I know for us , 2004 till 2018 was very decent with low inputs till root rots showed up
then it was more N intensive crops by necessity not choice

[the big wheel]

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?

[blackpowder]

The only energy I spend anymore is to urge the next generation to get involved. Educate and advocate. The desire has to be yours. Complacency always more expensive.

[Rareearth]

“If your not at the table, your on the menu”

Think about it, shouldn’t take long. Yet many won’t get it.

[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?