Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
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.
|
Farming’s always changing. And like many industries most farmers are good at innovating new ideas to help them out. We just don’t need big government walking in and saying “We know what’s best and here’s what we we want you to do”.
Also if they cut essential fertilizer back that is used for producing food what is their plan for non essential fertilizer that goes on residential lawns, parks, golf courses etc. Do you cut that too? I’m sure it contributes to green house gases as well. If it’s as big an issue as Trudeau says shouldn’t it be eliminated completely?