1wlimo wrote:Commercialfarmer you are for efficiency so why would you think that using chemicals till they are ineffective over and over is a good idea?
The problem with the theories of the sky is always falling is..... well several. But foremost, you don't have a clue what so ever what tomorrow will bring, much less next year or 10 years from now. A 150 years ago, no one dreamed of flying across the Atlantic. A 100 years ago, no one dreamed of landing on the moon. 50 years ago, people would have laughed at you if you told them you would be able to fit a computer in your pocket- heck, even if you told them you would have a phone without a wire. You can't make predictions of future disaster with only applying today's knowledge and technology. If you want to extrapolate growth in population, you have to extrapolate growth in technology. If you want to predict the failure of a product, you have to predict the invention of a new one.
By the way, you have shown no proof. You use broad based all inclusive statements but provide no facts or details. When you do, we can discuss them.
Or removing all hedge rows, and habits for predators to crop pests?
I realize you have been trained how to respond, but this don't make any sense. You don't know what anything looks like here.
Growing contiguous wheat when this yields less than a first wheat crop. The average wheat yield (3.11t/ha) in the US is just over that of India (2.9t/ha), but below that of China (4.8t/ha), and less than half of the French (7t/ha).
Yes the French are ranked where in the world in total production? These statistics are really funny. You already admitted to having a lower production avg by your protocols so what is the point? I understand fully the necessity of interpreting statistics appropriately. They mean NOTHING out of context. Is wheat grown on the best ground in the US- no. Other commodities are far more lucrative. When looking at corn, the US doubles the production of China in total volume. No one else coming close. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_g ... production
Last I checked, US wasn't the largest land mass but, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_g ... production
Again, you don't know what we deal with here and how successful our management is. We do what we do because it works in our environment. We are expanding rather rapidly, are you? Our environment produces at an optimum in our management. We have experimented and use what works the best here. We have weather patterns that aren't conducive for many different crops. We are in a level 5 wind region, that just doesn't bode well for things like sesame- tried that and the ground looked like a McDonalds hamburger bun. Corn will burn up. Sorghum may have some success some years. Others, the summer drought is just brutal. The rain patterns we have works great for small grain winter crops. We also graze the winter pasture and get a benefit we won't have otherwise. You have to look at the big picture. Total production is optimized and has been very sustainable.
Something you should think about: We just went through the worst drought since the dust bowel and here locally it was worse. What was the difference? No dust. Wonder why that was?
The fact that you state that you do not believe that public perception is important to you is a big issue. Leads to the regulation that you say you do not like.
When I follow through your thought process to the ultimate end: What you are saying is that you alter your production methods, so that people won't "regulate" you into altering your production methods? I guess you would have to be an advisor to understand the logic in that one. So do you ask auto mechanics for health care recommendations, and your mail man for legal advice? I tend to believe in personal property and that there is an end to intrusion. You idea of having public opinion regulate business is nothing short of crazy. We have an example here called... Solyndra.
If all it takes is altering popular opinion and you have to alter your practices, well then you have no solid ground to stand on. Hope you feel flexible.
Lots of modern farmers who think they are feeding the world have high to very high soil erosion levels. Why because they do not want to fallow advice from advisers, because they think they know better. They keep on spraying off all of their ground cover, and watch it blow or wash away. Heck look on some other forums and you soon find pictures of big tractors struggling with relativity small cultivators trying to breakup badly degraded soil. And they have to gal to say that a better farmer should need more hp.
Think? You may want to re-read. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_g ... production
I've already stated this, but will break it down a little further. We spray kill our ground so that there IS ground cover. A. We rip our ground once, leaving most of last years growth on top but it opens the ground for water intake. B. Allow growth for several weeks and then we kill summer growth by spraying- why? One we get a few weeks of summer grazing, and then again, so that there IS ground cover. Nothing blows. Nothing washes away. C. We work our ground once when we plant it- why? So that there IS still some of the dead cover while the young growth is coming up. Works great for us. Will it for you- who knows. That is the difference. I don't pretend to know what is best for an environment I have never seen. Are you wrong in your assumptions of our practices, yes. By the way, here if you have degraded soil it is called sand.
Safety, there is evidence of many issues with lots of chemicals that have been widely used. One reason they have been removed from use.
And there is a lot of made up hysteria. When you look at total food safety, it is by far the best the world has known and by far the most stable food supply. Surely you have heard of some of the famous famines in past history. I imagine they would have been happy to eat our bread.
When you get ahold of some of this evidence, let me know.
By the way, what makes your advisers so knowledgeable? I assume it is the same as county extension agents here. Have they proven themselves? No. They give their opinion for others to take chances. Some may be okay, others not. Titles don't create intelligence. If they applied their opinions and were awarded a paid position due to them being successful, I would have a different take. We had a really smart one recommend we dump all the runoff from a quarter section on a single terrace, I'm sure that would have worked out real great- Talk about soil loss.
Someday you may realize that experience is just as important, if not more so than theory. Theory will attempt to make a prediction on outcome (you keep saying that you should win in the long run), experience will one day tell you if you are correct.
I learned a while back to stop arguing so much with experience until I prove it wrong.