Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger
Farmers are already taking measures to decrease the amount of inputs on our crops. In the past 5 years we’ve started using sectional controls which decreased our inputs 5-8% on each field. This year we stated using variable rate controls on a few fields to test it out. We’ll see this harvest how it worked out.
Trust me. We are trying everything to decrease what we put in. My fertilizer bill alone this year was over $450,000. If I can redistribute how and where it’s used and cut back on that bill I will, but I definitely don’t need a politician who’s never been to a farm to come in and say cut it all by 30%. Profit margins are slim already. This could really hurt farmers at a time when the world need our grain.
|
And the sad part is that the cost of going to section control isn't necessarily paid for by the 5-8% decrease in input costs.
Variable rate is a big benefit though, and from my experience in Canada with mostly straight lines when it comes to farming, it can save the most money.
But I get it. The cost of land, equipment, seed, fertilizer, chemical, fuel and all other overheads are high, high, high...and without a bumper crop it is tough to make ends meet.
That is why I feel the Liberals are tone-deaf about this. Increased phosphorus buildup in our rivers, streams and lakes are an increasing problem, but it is a problem that could be addressed by rehabilitating our wetlands and marshes which can reduce phosphorous levels on average 5% PER YEAR. It would also help if cities like Winnipeg would dump raw sewage into the Red River.
At the same time I think farming will really change the next 10-20 years, and we as a country need to protect our farmers, not treat them as the problem.