A Farmers' Obligation

[Big Muddy rancher]

You're right Clarence, the word Sustainability is over used and the definition seems to change with who is using it.
The Global Round Table on Sustainability had major sponsorship from Dow and Elanco. You mentioned the native prairie, Dow would like everybody to "Increase" their grass with the use of Grazon. It might increase your grass but what about the forbs and the Western Snow Berry and wolf willow and the trees in the coulees that provide homes for wild life, Slow the wind, catch snow and in the case of Wolf Willow fixate nitrogen.

That would depend entirely on where you live and what your local conditions are. Which gets back to it being hard to paint anything as "unsustainable" with one brush.

I don't think anywhere would benefit from a monoculture. :?

 

[Silver]

I use it on fence lines and have yet to see a monoculture forming. :?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I use it on fence lines and have yet to see a monoculture forming. :?

So why don't you use it on your whole place?

That's what the chemical companies would like.
They would have corn on corn or canola on canola rotations or lack of if they could just get enough chemical to control the fungus and disease.

 

[Silver]

I use it on fence lines and have yet to see a monoculture forming. :?

So why don't you use it on your whole place?

That's what the chemical companies would like.
They would have corn on corn or canola on canola rotations or lack of if they could just get enough chemical to control the fungus and disease.

Are you telling me I'm just a chemical company's serf and can't make my own decisions regarding what is sustainable and what isn't? You seem pretty free with your advice on how to run my place lately.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I use it on fence lines and have yet to see a monoculture forming. :?

So why don't you use it on your whole place?

That's what the chemical companies would like.
They would have corn on corn or canola on canola rotations or lack of if they could just get enough chemical to control the fungus and disease.

Are you telling me I'm just a chemical company's serf and can't make my own decisions regarding what is sustainable and what isn't? You seem pretty free with your advice on how to run my place lately.

It was free advice.

Most on here that seemingly took offense to Pure County's article are probably doing a pretty good job of "sustainable" agriculture on their own places.
What I felt the article was referring to was the monoculture ag that is taking place, cutting down the shelter belts that saved some parts of the country from blowing away, breaking and draining wetland to farm corner to corner, using ever more fertilizer and chemicals to produce crops in ever shortened rotatations.

 

[PureCountry]

Most on here that seemingly took offense to Pure County's article are probably doing a pretty good job of "sustainable" agriculture on their own places.
What I felt the article was referring to was the monoculture ag that is taking place, cutting down the shelter belts that saved some parts of the country from blowing away, breaking and draining wetland to farm corner to corner, using ever more fertilizer and chemicals to produce crops in ever shortened rotatations.

Well this has generated quite a bit of discussion, which is good to see. That was my intent. Please understand one thing, if nothing else, I did not write this to paint anyone with a brush, or make anyone wrong. I wrote it to do exactly what it has done everywhere it has been published, posted or shared - make folks think. If you choose to be offended, it is just that, it is your choice. If you choose to think over your practices and stay the same, that is your choice. If you choose to make changes based on profit, or your land, or your family, that is your choice. I just want to see more people think about the consequences of trying to grow more and more, without any thought to what the end result will be; without any thought into where this will all end.

Think for example about a deer population in your area. We've all seen cycles in deer, coyotes, elk, etc. They rise with the easy winters and lush summers, then decline with inverse conditions of harsh winters and so on. When a certain animal species grows and grows and grows and becomes detrimental to another species, such as wolves cleaning out all the herbivores, or wild horses grazing all the grasslands to the demise of other herbivores, someone, somewhere always ends up saying, "Something has to be done about this!"

The most dominant species on the planet right now is the human species, altering entire continents however we see fit in order to get more oil, mine more steel, and grow more food. We micro analyse every other species' every movement with the scrutiny of a boss over an employee, yet why is it so hard for us to discuss all of our own actions, when we may be the deer stripping the land bare? At the very least, we should be thinking about it, and asking some tough questions. Just my opinion.

Thanks everyone for the good discussion.

 

[mrj]

We raise cattle on mostly native range pastures, but from what I read/hear, the farmers are raising more crops with LESS chemicals, not more. Minimum tillage, cover crops, and OPTIMUM, not maximum fertilizer amounts are making soil structure far better at holding more water where it should be. And that is what the Monsanto's of this world are promoting, as opposed to some claims of them pushing, or even forcing, farmers to use more and more chemicals. We tend to forget that the few huge corporations in farming actually are PEOPLE, and some of them even have very strong desire to help 'third world' farmers learn to feed themselves, and do so sustainably. Surely there are many people and governments promoting population control. Lets just hope and pray that they use honest and humane ways to do so.

mrj

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

We raise cattle on mostly native range pastures, but from what I read/hear, the farmers are raising more crops with LESS chemicals, not more. Minimum tillage, cover crops, and OPTIMUM, not maximum fertilizer amounts are making soil structure far better at holding more water where it should be. And that is what the Monsanto's of this world are promoting, as opposed to some claims of them pushing, or even forcing, farmers to use more and more chemicals. We tend to forget that the few huge corporations in farming actually are PEOPLE, and some of them even have very strong desire to help 'third world' farmers learn to feed themselves, and do so sustainably. Surely there are many people and governments promoting population control. Lets just hope and pray that they use honest and humane ways to do so.

mrj

I don't know how they would be doing it with LESS chemical as every farmer worth his salt in this country has a Big High clearance sprayer that runs from spring to fall. :?

 

[Traveler]

We raise cattle on mostly native range pastures, but from what I read/hear, the farmers are raising more crops with LESS chemicals, not more. Minimum tillage, cover crops, and OPTIMUM, not maximum fertilizer amounts are making soil structure far better at holding more water where it should be. And that is what the Monsanto's of this world are promoting, as opposed to some claims of them pushing, or even forcing, farmers to use more and more chemicals. We tend to forget that the few huge corporations in farming actually are PEOPLE, and some of them even have very strong desire to help 'third world' farmers learn to feed themselves, and do so sustainably. Surely there are many people and governments promoting population control. Lets just hope and pray that they use honest and humane ways to do so.

mrj

Good, sensible post.

 

[Traveler]

At the risk of sounding harsh, Hitler was also very concerned about the environment and overpopulation. Very similar reasoning.

 

[Denny]

We raise cattle on mostly native range pastures, but from what I read/hear, the farmers are raising more crops with LESS chemicals, not more. Minimum tillage, cover crops, and OPTIMUM, not maximum fertilizer amounts are making soil structure far better at holding more water where it should be. And that is what the Monsanto's of this world are promoting, as opposed to some claims of them pushing, or even forcing, farmers to use more and more chemicals. We tend to forget that the few huge corporations in farming actually are PEOPLE, and some of them even have very strong desire to help 'third world' farmers learn to feed themselves, and do so sustainably. Surely there are many people and governments promoting population control. Lets just hope and pray that they use honest and humane ways to do so.

mrj

I don't know how they would be doing it with LESS chemical as every farmer worth his salt in this country has a Big High clearance sprayer that runs from spring to fall. :?

I think every Rancher should raise some corn they would then figure out raiseing corn is'nt free and most corn farmers are very conscious about inputs. They are not going to waste money on extra fertilizer or sprays unless it's cost effective. We spray our corn with 1 qt. to the acre with round-up normally thats it I do know some serious corn farmers who are actually top dressing liquid fertilizer with those sprayers. They maybe spraying to control insects.Thats wrong but the cattlemen can use pour ons add altazoid to their mineral use insecticide ear tags. Each industry has it's hurdles. We started useing commercial fertilizer on our hayground the results were double the production and a 3% jump in protein levels of the resulting hay. I sold enough hay to pay for all of my corn seed and fertilizer in puts and the cows are in better condition due to the better quality forage.

20 years ago corn farmers would lay down one pass of atrazine that would keep the soil from sprouting anything for a couple of years with the carry over now days most are making more passes combating issues as they arise in the past most just poured it all on at once and sometimes it was uneeded. Thses farmers are'nt rapeing their land as you think they have as many worries as any of the rancher crowd they just know that for them to be successful they need to reap a profit from each acre they control so if they remove some trees so be it. The biggest problem here I see is most of the older generation are scared of change and some of the younger are also so if you can't beat them they bash them.A friend of mine does a corn,bean rotation they no till as much as they can doing limited tillage he also leaves his corn stalks on the field. Alot of these guys have no reason to incorporate alfalfa in the rotation it normally is'nt cost effective here even for those of us who could use it..

If I truly believed that the chemicals were harmful as are the petroleum products I would'nt use them. I also would not work for an oil company for my living then bash the folks that use the resulting products..

 

[3 M L & C]

My grandpa put his first well in in 1969. Right now we raise twice the grain as they did then use less than half the water and less fertilizer also about 25-30 % of the fuel they used back then. Then key is to apply fertilizer when crop needs it not when it's easiest. Also we spray our ground one time a year. I'm incorporate cover crops also and only tillage we do is when we get 20 ton manure spread on our irrigated ground once every 6-8 years. Anyone that thinks farmers do things the way we did 50 years ago even 10 years ago has their head in the sand.

 

[4Diamond]

With the number of farmers and ranchers continually declining and land decreasing, technology must be used to continue to feed the world. Agreed this isn't 1960, you better adapt to change or get left behind.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I'm not sure that we all read the same article, no where in it did i read that we should be Luddites. The mention of chemical spray was in regards to how close to a creek.
I felt is was more on making decisions with results regarding the well being of family and land in place.
Some say we can't do it like Grandpa did or how we did it 10 years ago. Of course we can't, we can do it better. I'm pretty sure my G'pa would of had a cell phone and used it instead of driving 40 miles to the nearest one to conduct business. It would have saved 20 miles to Big Beaver to the telegraph to order rail cars for shipping cattle out or feed in.
We are doing better for the environment with some of the products we use on cattle> Who uses much Organo Phosphates any more?
How many of us enjoy Soapweed's pictures? Maybe we should take time to take and post some ourselves.
I very much enjoy seeing the sights , the poetry gatherings, rodeos and such that Soap posts. Maybe I should make time to do more.
How many times has Denny said he wished he could stop building trailers and just work on the farm/ranch. It's a means to a end that many have off farm jobs are striving for. What I got out of PC's piece was that we should consider what we are doing and how we are doing it if if fits our family values, social values and environmental values.
I've heard many reasons for defending certain practices but comparing a rancher's concern for the well being of his family and health of the ecosystem on his ranch to being a Nazi pretty much tops them all. :roll:

 

[Traveler]

I've heard many reasons for defending certain practices but comparing a rancher's concern for the well being of his family and health of the ecosystem on his ranch to being a Nazi pretty much tops them all. :roll:

You're getting creative. My comments were in regard to the following quote. Do I need to provide links to demonstrate the historical reasoning?

The most dominant species on the planet right now is the human species, altering entire continents however we see fit in order to get more oil, mine more steel, and grow more food. We micro analyse every other species' every movement with the scrutiny of a boss over an employee, yet why is it so hard for us to discuss all of our own actions, when we may be the deer stripping the land bare? At the very least, we should be thinking about it, and asking some tough questions. Just my opinion.

 

[mrj]

While not always as kind and friendly as we could be, this discussion has stirred a little more thought and maybe even some learning about the broader aspects of agriculture/farming/ranching than we know on or about our own little piece of the world, which ultimately has to be an improvement. How did we get to be such narrow thinkers, anyway?

For instance, a very few years ago, maybe five, surely not so much as ten, we began to see some corn planted in northern Jackson County, SD. Horrors! Corn couldn't succeed here without irrigation! But it did. We forgot that our own SD State U has a very active research into all sorts of crops. Seed has been developed (likely for many crops) which can thrive with much less water than the traditional corn grown 'east of the river' in SD. We may not get the same yields out here, but we have bought a little of the 'local' corn and it worked just fine for our short term feeding needs as we backgrounded our calves through the last few winters. There was a considerable savings in miles transported, which decreases the 'carbon footprint', we are told.

We probably haven't all noticed that research into how to irrigate more effectively, with less water, has been at least as active as finding how to fine tune the fertilization, weed and disease control, and all the other means anyone uses to grow the animal and people food necessary for the people of this world.

Why do we persist in thinking those who may raise crops differently, or who may do the research to develop improved ways to save our crops from pests of various sorts and to 'do more with less' (crop inputs) must have nefarious, hidden goals in mind to somehow profit unjustly?

Why and how did profit become such an epithet, anyway ?

mrj

 

[George]

I feel we are very fugal - - - our " new " combine is a 2000 - - - and we do most of the work ourselves yet we lay over $1,000,000.00 on the line each year for seed, fert. and chemicals - - - I guarantee you we use the minimum we can as we do not like to throw money away.

We farm right at 2,300 acres of row crop plus we have several hundred acres of hay and pasture ground. We own about 25% of the ground we farm and rent the rest - - - ground in this area is running from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 per acre if you can find any for sale. We bought 30 acres 2 years ago for $6,500.00 @ - - - would not have paid that much but we owned on 2 sides of it and did not want to see houses popping up there.

Yes we do buy insurance which has been running us in the neighborhood of $160,000.00 per year - - - it is a choice I feel any person with a brain would make with as much money on the line as we have. If I knew we would not have a disaster I would love to keep that money in my pocket but I went thru a drought in 1983 and again in 1988 when drought insurance was not available and both times almost lost everything.

Several farmers in the local area did not have insurance when the drought happened 3 years ago and they were eligible for low interest loans and most survived - - - I am glad they survived but the ones I know now buy the insurance every year. Yes we got a good check but it came in 3 rounds as the program was apparently not fully funded ( imagine a government program not fully funded ) and we had to wait till premiums were paid in the following year.

I do not look at insurance as a hand out - - - if your house burns down and you collect a check is that a handout? It is your choice to buy insurance or take the risk yourself.

Yes we do try to be the best we can be - - - we are averaging around 230 bu of dry corn per acre and 63 bu of dry soybeans - - - we have do do everything right to achieve this year after year - - - great farming practices including tile everywhere to stop runoff of the materials we buy - - - if I put out a chemical I want it to work on my ground - - - not down stream - - - also tile makes the water table at 3' if done right so the crop will send its first roots down to where the water table is and will thrive on much less water than crops where the table might be high in the spring. After the crop finds water the roots never go down again - - - only side ways so if the water table is at 1' in the spring and you get 1" of rain a week all summer the crop will thrive but if you move the water table to 3' the crops will still thrive with 1" of rain a month - - - during the drought we had soybeans in 2 side by side fields, one we owned and had tile in every 50' at 3' depth and the other we rented with no tile - - - the previous year ( normal rainfall ) both yielded about the same but in the drought the one with tile we did not collect insurance on as it made 58 bu of beans but the one with no tile planted the same day with the same practices made 18 bu.

If you farm to provide for your family you must work 20 hour days in the spring and fall when the weather allows and 12 hour days the rest of the year - - - if you are not willing to commit to this look for a different way to provide for your family!

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I've heard many reasons for defending certain practices but comparing a rancher's concern for the well being of his family and health of the ecosystem on his ranch to being a Nazi pretty much tops them all. :roll:

You're getting creative. My comments were in regard to the following quote. Do I need to provide links to demonstrate the historical reasoning?

The most dominant species on the planet right now is the human species, altering entire continents however we see fit in order to get more oil, mine more steel, and grow more food. We micro analyse every other species' every movement with the scrutiny of a boss over an employee, yet why is it so hard for us to discuss all of our own actions, when we may be the deer stripping the land bare? At the very least, we should be thinking about it, and asking some tough questions. Just my opinion.

I see that as questioning Humans vs Humanity and how we can do our best to provide for both.