One field will make it!

[parsley]

Farming isn't a competition, is it?

At least most farmers who are comfortatable in their own skin don't see a need to add up their assets and toys and compare them.

That being said, in Saskatchewan, a lot of farmers were undergoing "debt counsellling", or were experiencing major debt problems, where professionals were going in and giving them a 'try this' piece of advice.

A provincial government counselling program.

I saw the stats, the ones from a few years ago, and can only reflect upon what I read.

The farmers who were having pronounced financial problems were indeed the larger operations; up to their indebted asset sheets to the banks; demanding government programs to bail them out.

Large operations, a lot of them, with fancy half tons sitting out front, elicited the comment, "fancy houses and fancier mouths" from those appraising them.

The farmers needed a crop to survive. And they EXPECTED to survive. Demanded it. At taxpayers' expense, if nothing else. Which is where I balk, btw.

So there was definitely a financial cure being sought. By farmers themselves. And that comes from, not lazy farm asses, not from poor yields, BUT from poor prices, IMHO. But each AVer will have a different spin.

I have to admit, though, I admire anyone farming who not only is wealthier than than all the incomes and assets of every one of his/her friends' combined, but also has has the ability to tell friends so in such a non-hesitant manner, without alienating them; without risking making any of them feel a bit lessened.

Now, there's a rare diplomatic skill.

I'd bet it would be hard to find someone with $4B to run that kind of risk. pars

[parsley]

Don't know how the ad got in there Joe. Pars

[darren442]

Actually i've talked to a few organic farmers that do not take a back seat to any conventional farmer in there area. You can still use products to help yield in organic farming it just can't be on the do not use list.

but what ever floats your boat. I support both farming methods and don't knock either one. Although i do think theses inputs are getting a bit out of control to bad yield and prices wouldn't go higher as your bill goes higher.

[Jay-mo]

As much as I am critical of "organic" products and production. I think there are things that "conventional" farming can take from "organic" methods. If there are ways to lower your need for manufactured fertilizers and herbicides thereby lowering risk and increasing ones profit why would anyone not at least consider it.
What I see in my area of "organic" farming is alot if intensive tillage with black dirt drifts in ditches and increasingly bare hilltops, and fields so infested by weeds you can't tell what is supposed to be there. Intensive tillage IMO is the single most damaging practice done to prairie farmland.

heh, can this thread get any more off-topic?

[fjlip]

That is what we see here also, MAXIMUM TILLAGE, soil mining, lots of fallow including plowing and still weeds that blow to others fields. I feel all farmers should be liable for spreading weed seeds. That would put a big wrinkle into organic. Unless these fellows are all wrong, it's a mess and getting worse every year. I hear of 50% dockage. A super B with 500 net bu, because its so bulky.

[gregpet]

One of our organic neighbors expected me to leave a buffer zone from his field while he wanted to plant right up to the fenceline. He's not the best to deal with but this did not go over so well with me. Another problem are the weed seeds that migrate to our field. If done properly organics can work but I prefer my current method of crop production.

[parsley]

All farmers have our preference, gregpet.

But I maintain the most important preference to consider is the buyer's preference.

And they ask: What do the actual eaters want, and buy and pay for?

(The ones that pay, that is, not the ones getting food aid.)

And btw, if I were to give you a choice of buying food from a sprayed crop or a non-sprayed crop, all considerational factors equal, what would most answers be? Pars

[jensend]

i agree organics should be responsible for what comes off their land but conventional farmers should be as well. we live in the middle of a section of pasture and have had lorsban drift through the house, too. application technology for these chems is actually pretty crude and the environment is paying the price.

[checking]

My preference would be a Rolls Royce, but all I really require is an old egg beater to get from point A to point B. Not offering a free trip here, yet I wonder if I sent a group of picky eaters to an island that only served, and only had access to conventional food, how many days would it take before they thought about giving up their preference? On a side note, I'd like to congratulate Walk. Hell, I'd like to have Walk as a neighbour. I could learn from him. This person is a refreshing reminder that all is not doom and gloom in our countryside. How many automobile wrecks does anyone really need to read about, and what would you feel more for, the Rolls Royce or the egg beater?

[gregpet]

I agree with you Pars, that's why I asked you to have a look at the CTV poll. Interesting.

[parsley]

checking, I said all factors being equal. Many wanna-be survivors would knaw on the neighbor's leg if desperate; wouldn't you?

That wasn't the point though, and you know it, but a crafty way to pass batting.

But, I agree with you that the farming valkster is a phenomena who's revealed much about himself, and farmers are usually receptive to 'save and file', I'm sure.

[parsley]

gregpet,

As you know, I'm not one for polls.

fyi, for AVers, CTV asked 8,689 people:
"How often do you pick up organic food at the grocery store?"

111 said they ate nothing but organic.

906 said they often ate organic.

3069 people said they occassionally ate organic.

4603 said they never ate organic.


What is unbelievable for me in this poll, gregpet, is that so many people have actually eaten organic. Either the rush is for upscale restaurants, or else the polls are whacky, because I can't imagine so many Canadians eating organic.

Rather like the Wheat Board polls where a dozen years ago, dumping the monopoly was unheard of, but self-marketing is now is a thought courted by almost half the farmers, as is the consumer courting the idea of organic food.

Glad you brought it to my attention, although I must say, I think the media would have a tendency to skew the numbers because most of them eat organic.

And I'm okay with a lower number. After all, pure organic food is not affordable for the masses, is it.

maybe it will be some Canadian politician gaining infamy some day, by stating, "Let them eat inserted-gene cake."

Pars

[Fransisco]

If all other things are equal including the price. Then I don't care which one I eat, flip a coin it doesn't matter.

If one is less expensive than the other then that's the one I want.

[parsley]

Do you follow the same guideline with the suit you buy?

[parsley]

Well, rumplesuitskin, according to the poll gregpet recommended , 35% of the eaters occassionally eat organic, and so this considerable group willingly fork out more bucks for food.

Hmm. Lesson here somewhere.

Does a consumer paying more for food help set a trend for the overall willingness to pay morre for food?

And does that benefit farmers as a group, do you consider higher prices paid for for food a detriment to farmers?

And how about farmers as a consumer group, bragging they will pay only the cheapest price going?

How does that help edge up a farmers income?

Or do we blurt out of both corners of our windhole? Pars