# Real life "organic" crop yields vs. conventional.



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I ran across this article the other day. If you read it, you will see hard numbers on actual yields of a few crops under both systems. It is sometimes hard to get good hard numbers for arguments sake, so I thought I would share them, as I found them enlightening.

Those who feel organic can yield as good or better, have a look. It confirms what I see in grain farming country as you drive by the weedy, infertile, eroded, and over-tilled "organic" fields.

http://www.producer.com/2015/07/can-organic-ever-catch-up-with-conventional/#disqus_thread

What do you figure?


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

farmerDale said:


> I ran across this article the other day. If you read it, you will see hard numbers on actual yields of a few crops under both systems. It is sometimes hard to get good hard numbers for arguments sake, so I thought I would share them, as I found them enlightening.
> 
> *Those who feel organic can yield as good or better, have a look. It confirms what I see in grain farming country as you drive by the weedy, infertile, eroded, and over-tilled "organic" fields.*
> 
> ...


........


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I have never heard of organic being high production, especially when compared to conventional.

I thought it was supposed to be about wholesomeness.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

I know from personal experience that you can grow more chickens and more eggs with them packed into a building than running around in the yard. However, when it comes to eating, they are two different animals, and there is no question which is best.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

It has been my experience, admittedly only in small to medium settings, that organic farming can produce almost as much as 'conventional'. But the cost are higher due to the need for more labor and more expensive means needed for incest and weed control.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> I have never heard of organic being high production, especially when compared to conventional.
> 
> *I thought it was supposed to be about wholesomeness.*


Yuppers , well , wholesomesness and weedy, infertile, eroded, and over-tilled "organic" fields ".
:facepalm:


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I grew organic using the same methods as conventional farming. There is still little no-till around here. Cannery crops, wheat and grass seed all conventionally planted. A lot of rotation has to be done to keep the soil fertile and weed load under control with organic. Orchard trees farmed the same, except for sprays and fertility. Berries the same. I used manure, organic trace minerals and fish waste both organic and conventional. My organic fields were not anymore weedy but I didn't spray to kill everything in conventional crops, only when weed load was too high. I had organic wheat that yielded the same as conventionally grown wheat, but just one year after the right crop rotation, then wait 3 years to rotate back to wheat where conventional wheat could be continuously planted. I would have hated to grow crops organically on some land I farmed that flooded, weeds could be bad some years from weed seeds floating in. I could grow peppermint 3 years organically, 7-10 conventionally. Weeds and fertility were concerns. Makes a big difference where you are and your devotion to the end product....James


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> Yuppers , well , wholesomesness and weedy, infertile, eroded, and over-tilled "organic" fields ".
> :facepalm:


I was only referring to the end product, since that is what the discussion was about.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

watcher said:


> It has been my experience, admittedly only in small to medium settings, that organic farming can produce almost as much as 'conventional'. But the cost are higher due to the need for more labor and more expensive means needed for* incest* and weed control.


:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

OMG that cracked me up.

Thanks, I really needed a good laugh.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Freudian slip?


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> It has been my experience, admittedly only in small to medium settings, that organic farming can produce almost as much as 'conventional'. But the cost are higher due to the need for more labor and more expensive means needed for incest and weed control.


AUTOMATIC CORECTION STRIKES AGAIN!:banana:


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

vicker said:


> I know from personal experience that you can grow more chickens and more eggs with them packed into a building than running around in the yard. However, when it comes to eating, they are two different animals, and there is no question which is best.


I agree to a large extent. IF we are talking animals. But we are talking about grain crops, and the end result is indisputable. I guess I was more wondering what folks thought of the hard and solid yield numbers of organic grain farming.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> ........


It is not my opinion. It is hard yield data on millions upon millions of acres.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> Yuppers , well , wholesomesness and weedy, infertile, eroded, and over-tilled "organic" fields ".
> :facepalm:


Why the facepalm? You think tillage is beneficial for the soil? You think organic grain production is clean in terms of weeds? You think tillage saves the soil from erosion? Do you think organic farmers soil is more fertile than someone who actually adds to the soil what it needs to remain highly productive? Do you think organic grain farmers use less fossil fuel and tillage passes than a conventional farmer?

Just curious about this. A facepalm says so very little, so it is hard to know what you are talking about???


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> It has been my experience, admittedly only in small to medium settings, that organic farming can produce almost as much as 'conventional'. But the cost are higher due to the need for more labor and more expensive means needed for incest and weed control.


By all means, spray whatever you have to...just make that incest Stop, :gaptooth:


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Fennick said:


> :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
> 
> OMG that cracked me up.
> 
> Thanks, I really needed a good laugh.



I know we're not supposed to be the spelling police but I loved it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A facepalm says so very little, so it is hard to know what you are talking about???


It's meant to be condescending, but it just shows they are blind to the facts


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Fennick said:


> :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
> 
> OMG that cracked me up.
> 
> Thanks, I really needed a good laugh.


After you pointed it out it gave me a chuckle as well.


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

farmerDale said:


> Why the facepalm? You think tillage is beneficial for the soil? You think organic grain production is clean in terms of weeds? You think tillage saves the soil from erosion? Do you think organic farmers soil is more fertile than someone who actually adds to the soil what it needs to remain highly productive? Do you think organic grain farmers use less fossil fuel and tillage passes than a conventional farmer?
> 
> Just curious about this. A facepalm says so very little, so it is hard to know what you are talking about???


I don't know anyone who still tills . ~well maybe those with the 20' x 30 ' plot ~ .What I do know is that the farmers who drown the ground with round up are creating monster weeds .... but I think you knew that already .If not ,your not very observant .


----------



## J.T.M. (Mar 2, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's meant to be condescending, but it just shows they are blind to the facts


 Have you ever had an original thought ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I have never heard of organic being high production, especially when compared to conventional.
> 
> I thought it was supposed to be about wholesomeness.


How wholesome is starvation? I would much rather bring in a crop that may or may not be wholesome than to bust my tail all season and not get my seed back. Been there done that.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

J.T.M. said:


> I don't know anyone who still tills . ~well maybe those with the 20' x 30 ' plot ~ .What I do know is that the farmers who drown the ground with round up are creating monster weeds .... but I think you knew that already .If not ,your not very observant .


If you are an "organic" grain farmer, you use piles of tillage. From what you said there, I am not positive you know the definition of tillage. Maybe you are thinking roto tilling? Tillage is the ONLY way to kill weeds, and the ONLY way to release nutrients from the soil organic matter. (IE mine the soil).

Drown the ground with roundup? Like two cups every few years per acre? Creating monster weeds? How? I have no monster weeds, because there is such a thing as crop and herbicide rotation. The fools who get into trouble, are those who over use a herbicide. Did you know, that long before glyphosate, there were resistant weeds? This is not a new issue, and farmers who are on top of it and plan, will never have resistant problems.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

farmerDale said:


> If you are an "organic" grain farmer, you use piles of tillage.
> ....The fools who get into trouble, are those who over use a herbicide.


I see you still don't want to discuss anything, you want to bully others to "see" your point of view.

You will never grow "organic" because you don't want to. You want to "farm" the easy way. Natural farming is not easy, never was. It is a way of life, done for the long haul as I have said before. Yes a lot of rotation, companion planting, tillage at the right time and use of rotation crops so you do not "mine" the soil. It is a mind change from the "grow" for the masses modern farming, it is sustainable farming. After all, it was done for centuries. Only way the Indians knew before the white man came and then the white man used until chemicals were "discovered". Here, land was put into set aside in the 50's, Land bank, rotated out of use, to improve the soil, it came back and is better today for it. If crops were grown closer to end use, there would be so much less waste. Sustainable farming. I know many will never do it, but it can be done. Probably not where you are, wanting to only grow grains, when and where you want, when you want. It takes planning and diversification. You have beat this to death, never changed a mind, but still bring it back to stir the pot....James


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

jwal10 said:


> I see you still don't want to discuss anything, you want to bully others to "see" your point of view.
> 
> You will never grow "organic" because you don't want to. You want to "farm" the easy way. Natural farming is not easy, never was. It is a way of life, done for the long haul as I have said before. Yes a lot of rotation, companion planting, tillage at the right time and use of rotation crops so you do not "mine" the soil. It is a mind change from the "grow" for the masses modern farming, it is sustainable farming. After all, it was done for centuries. Only way the Indians knew before the white man came and then the white man used until chemicals were "discovered". Here, land was put into set aside in the 50's, Land bank, rotated out of use, to improve the soil, it came back and is better today for it. If crops were grown closer to end use, there would be so much less waste. Sustainable farming. I know many will never do it, but it can be done. Probably not where you are, wanting to only grow grains, when and where you want, when you want. It takes planning and diversification. You have beat this to death, never changed a mind, but still bring it back to stir the pot....James



I will respond more thoroughly later tonight. I have a plugged baler I need to get at. lol


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Dale, you know Paisley's gone right? Your last thread on this exact same topic trolled her into a ban. I don't think you're going to get the bites you were hoping for this time. 

I happen to think that you're right, when it comes to feeding a nation that lives predominantly in cities, but you're preaching to a choir that does everything they can to get out of the cities, and on to their own little patch of heaven in the heather where they can break their own ground for tomorrow's dinner. 

The organic vs non-organic argument is entirely different when we're talking about our half acre sustenance gardens, and no one here wants to put you out of business- we shudder to imagine all the city rats that would come crowding us out looking for some of what we've got.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How wholesome is starvation? I would much rather bring in a crop that may or may not be wholesome than to bust my tail all season and not get my seed back. Been there done that.


It has nothing to do with how much one consumes.

You are only assuming organic growers do not make a profit.

Either organic or conventional, I could care less.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> It has nothing to do with how much one consumes.
> 
> You are only assuming organic growers do not make a profit.
> 
> Either organic or conventional, I could care less.


I have an organic farmer friend who shows a fair profit, can't argue that, I am not sure I approve of all his methods. You may have heard of him...the barefoot farmer from Tn?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have an organic farmer friend who shows a fair profit, can't argue that, I am not sure I approve of all his methods. You may have heard of him...the barefoot farmer from Tn?


I have not, but he sounds all right. 

IMO, organic and conventional are both just fine, they are just not really similar, in many ways.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Dale, you know Paisley's gone right? Your last thread on this exact same topic trolled her into a ban. I don't think you're going to get the bites you were hoping for this time.
> 
> I happen to think that you're right, when it comes to feeding a nation that lives predominantly in cities, but you're preaching to a choir that does everything they can to get out of the cities, and on to their own little patch of heaven in the heather where they can break their own ground for tomorrow's dinner.
> 
> The organic vs non-organic argument is entirely different when we're talking about our half acre sustenance gardens, and no one here wants to put you out of business- we shudder to imagine all the city rats that would come crowding us out looking for some of what we've got.


Oh pu-lease, Paisley's short fuse and irrational fears took her out. I saw Dale respond with an even, non aggressive tone and sound info. to many of her outbursts. 

You are ahead of most of the "pack" because you can accept that our "backyard" methods would leave people hungry if it wasn't for commercial agriculture. :thumb: Some just want modern methods and GMOs to go away tomorrow and don't seem to care about the consequences.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> Oh pu-lease, Paisley's short fuse and irrational fears took her out. I saw Dale respond with an even, non aggressive tone and sound info. to many of her outbursts.


True enough, she was unreasonably principled sometimes and could fly off the handle, but I notice you said that Dale responded calmly to MANY of her outbursts. There were plenty of times that he just fed the beast. He found her button, and he enjoyed pressing it. In fairness, she was blasting his livelihood, but he could have taken the high road and accepted that he wasn't going to change her mind, at some point. 

You can't deny that the thread I'm talking about was posted for the sole purpose of trolling her. She certainly carries her share of the blame, but Dale was far from an innocent dance partner.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I don't think I saw the exchange that led to the banning. I'll take your word for it what you saw and how you perceived it. I'll just say I saw a lot more grace and diplomacy coming from FarmerDale on the many threads that I witnessed. 

It's one of those "hot button" topics where no amount of logic, reason and fact is going to change some people's minds. They feel what they feel. We probably all have at least one thing we are the same way about. 

Like teasing a mean pit bull on a chain, sometimes it's just so easy you can't resist even when you know it's wrong. One word, one move, and they are lunging at the chain, snapping and drooling. Too predictable to really be fun, but sometimes the devil on the other shoulder wins!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> True enough, she was unreasonably principled sometimes and could fly off the handle, but I notice you said that Dale responded calmly to MANY of her outbursts. There were plenty of times that he just fed the beast. He found her button, and he enjoyed pressing it. In fairness, she was blasting his livelihood, but he could have taken the high road and accepted that he wasn't going to change her mind, at some point.
> 
> You can't deny that the thread I'm talking about was posted for the sole purpose of trolling her. She certainly carries her share of the blame, but Dale was far from an innocent dance partner.


I guess if sharing facts about farming is trolling, I am guilty as charged. You know, I private messaged Pretty Paisley on more than one occasion on different things, encouraging her, and offering some understanding when she was down. But no one but her and I know this. Yet she woulld attack me and my farm facts relentlessly! 

I would again encourage folks to look at the link of hard numbers at the start of this thread. I was simply hoping people would see and recognize that organic farming is a very low production method, when we are talking grain crops in Western Canada. I was looking for constructive ideas and perhaps a few, " Wow, is that ever interesting." comments.

Forgive me all. I am not meaning to troll, or to be baiting folks. I just like sharing facts about the way I make my living, something I am very passionate about, and wish to defend when non factual information is often shared.

Cheers. If no one wishes true dialogue, true debate, and just to chat about the numbers I shared, but would rather face palm, accuse, and accuse me of trolling, forget I ever posted the startling information.

Again, I am sorry to those who feel fact sharing is trolling.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

Most of the Paisly threads I remember were started by her in a deliberate attempt to do the button pushing.
And regardlee of what some folks might think I recall several conversations that were about how organic farming can yield just as well as conventional with certain studies from organic players listed as proof.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

More interesting to me is would be the transition from conventional farming to certified organic. 

In Canada, you're either certified organic or you're just farming and in order to grow organic crops, there is a substantial period where one has to follow the rules of organic farming but can't even reap the benefit of selling into that market.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

It's 3 years to transition land. There are cases that I have seen where an owner was allowed to sign an affadavit that no chemicals had been used for so long and the land could be certified then.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Here's my take on it. Organic yields less than conventional. Fine. Does it have to yield as much? Do we really need to produce as much grain as we are?  Maybe not so much with wheat, but corn is shoved and stuffed into as many products as it possibly can be. A vast majority of processed foods contain corn in some shape or form. We're even putting it in our gas tanks. We're feeding it to every animal we can, including us.

Maybe we should rethink our entire farming system, and realize it's better to grow actual food, not just ingredients. Instead of growing something and then figuring out how to work it into our food system, maybe we should figure out what we need to eat and then grow it. Does that make sense?

I'm noticing lately that more and more conventional farmers are getting defensive about the whole organic/natural/free range/local movement. Isn't their room for everyone? Conventional crops are needed. Organic crops are needed. There is a need for both, and both are important.

There are issues with organic farming (namely soil tillage, like you mentioned before, Dale). There are issues with conventional farming, like monocultures of "food" we can't eat, or high use of herbicides. There ARE resistant weeds that are becoming more and more of a problem (pig weed, mares tail, amaranth). 

Instead of just discounting the other method, wouldn't it be better to try to work together and improve BOTH types (all types) of farming? There are things that can be learned on each side.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> Here's my take on it. Organic yields less than conventional. Fine. Does it have to yield as much? Do we really need to produce as much grain as we are? Maybe not so much with wheat, but corn is shoved and stuffed into as many products as it possibly can be. A vast majority of processed foods contain corn in some shape or form. We're even putting it in our gas tanks. We're feeding it to every animal we can, including us.
> 
> Maybe we should rethink our entire farming system, and realize it's better to grow actual food, not just ingredients. Instead of growing something and then figuring out how to work it into our food system, maybe we should figure out what we need to eat and then grow it. Does that make sense?
> 
> ...


Great post. This is the kind of discussion I was thinking may occur! You said things very well. The only thing I can think of to respond to is regarding a conventional farmer's thoughts on organic. The main thing I want to do is share the facts. Lots of organic organizations simply do not, and it gives consumers a faulty impression. Thanks for the input.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

farmerDale said:


> Great post. This is the kind of discussion I was thinking may occur! You said things very well. The only thing I can think of to respond to is regarding a conventional farmer's thoughts on organic. The main thing I want to do is share the facts. Lots of organic organizations simply do not, and it gives consumers a faulty impression. Thanks for the input.


I'll agree that many organic supporting people do not share facts, they share faulty info that was created by someone who simply doesn't know any better. The stuff gets spread around like gospel and then nobody can convince them it's false.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

sammyd said:


> It's 3 years to transition land. There are cases that I have seen where an owner was allowed to sign an affadavit that no chemicals had been used for so long and the land could be certified then.



I might be misinformed but when I researched it, it's 5 years to be certified organic and you can't skirt that with a piece of paper.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

wr said:


> I might be misinformed but when I researched it, it's 5 years to be certified organic and you can't skirt that with a piece of paper.


Maybe it's a Canada thing? Most states (I haven't researched all) it's 3 years. I would think it's 3 yrs across the board for USDA certified.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

MDKatie said:


> Here's my take on it. Organic yields less than conventional. Fine. Does it have to yield as much? Do we really need to produce as much grain as we are? Maybe not so much with wheat, but corn is shoved and stuffed into as many products as it possibly can be. A vast majority of processed foods contain corn in some shape or form. We're even putting it in our gas tanks. We're feeding it to every animal we can, including us.
> 
> Maybe we should rethink our entire farming system, and realize it's better to grow actual food, not just ingredients. Instead of growing something and then figuring out how to work it into our food system, maybe we should figure out what we need to eat and then grow it. Does that make sense?
> 
> ...


Great post! The only hair I will split is "conventional farmers getting defensive". You have read some of the hysterical anti-farmer rhetoric, right? And then there was the food inc movie and all kinds of other attacks. No way to describe them but attacks, and what do you do when attacked? Defend yourself. 

I'm guessing there is a minority of people who are members here who are actually reading farm publications. Well some of them go across my desk, and I'm seeing headlines about cover crops and other such topics you might just as well see in an organic producer publication. Commercial agriculture will use the "gentlest" method that works and is cost effective. I do think both "sides" of farming have something to learn from each other. But when organic's sales pitch is mostly about how bad the other guy is, it's hard to find that common ground!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

wr said:


> I might be misinformed but when I researched it, it's 5 years to be certified organic and you can't skirt that with a piece of paper.


Maybe it varies by province? In Sask it is indeed three years for the transition. and you are right, these years are tough. Many folks grow hay and sell it for a low input alternative for the transition years.

The grand irony in all this:

I have more "organic" land than I do conventional land, in that I have hundreds of acres of lake, creeks, woodlands, meadows, marshes, hay land, pastureland, that is all treated organically. Yesterday, I baled some of my organic hay. Granted, it is not certified organic, but I treat it organically, because I do not have to push it to get maxxed out yields, so I choose the cheap route and do nothing. It is not a long term concern, as when I rotate out of the organic type of production, the land gets replenished with proper, accurate fertility and weed control. 

I have toyed strongly with the idea of trying a bit of organic as some of my hay gets rotated to crops. I have yet to find a sustainable way to do this, though. Nutrients must be replaced somehow, and doing it on a commercial scale is pretty much impossible. Dormant weed seeds need to be controlled, which is impossible to do as well organically once you have seeded the crop, and weeds are a huge potential impact on yield. A few wild mustard plants per square foot can mean 30% yield loss in some crops. And the those plants that seed out, contribute to decades of further issues.

I believe there is no farming that is sustainable, unless we each have a horse, and a ten acre patch of land. Even then, you gotta feed the horse something! And you need to replace lost nutrients somehow, which means importing it in some form, otherwise you are simply mining the soil, burning it out for the next generation. If you can in the first place, keep the soil within your boundary in the first place, which, in organic grain farming, is a very hard thing to do, because of the massive amount of tillage necessary to control the weeds and burn the soil organic matter to contribute to the plants nutrient needs.

A good question is indeed, do we HAVE to grow more? And truly, the answer is I guess not. But when you rely soley on your farm to make you a living wage, and to raise a family on, you do it the best way possible. If I were near a major city, I would certainly try to tap into different farming methods to cater to that type of market. If I were in a high demand vegetable region, same thing. One has to use the land for its best purpose, and balance that with making a decent living.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Something that came to mind as I read through the posts is that just because something is farmed "organically" doesn't mean it's farmed well. And just because something is farmed conventionally, doesn't mean it's farmed poorly. And vice versa. The terms "conventional" and "organic" leave so much room that they are quite limited in their usefulness. 

Though not exactly the same topic, I've heard some go on and on about how healthy vegans are. Some are healthy. Some are not. Just being vegan doesn't automatically make a person healthy. There is a lot of unhealthy vegan food out there. I suspect there is a lot of pretty poor quality "organic" food out there (as suggested by the opening post), too, but since it technically qualifies for the label and they've paid the appropriate fees, the label goes on.

While some disagree on some things, I'll bet there are a lot of things we all do agree on. I think most of us really do enjoy good healthy food, which is pretty much the goal for those raising it. And Dale, you are very right that it gets a lot more complicated trying to grow on a larger scale and do it well.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

farmerDale said:


> A good question is indeed, do we HAVE to grow more? And truly, the answer is I guess not. But when you rely soley on your farm to make you a living wage, and to raise a family on, you do it the best way possible. If I were near a major city, I would certainly try to tap into different farming methods to cater to that type of market. If I were in a high demand vegetable region, same thing. One has to use the land for its best purpose, and balance that with making a decent living.


Perhaps more farmers should think about value added products, or food and not ingredients, like I mentioned before. Corn doesn't pay much per bushel, because it's an ingredient. Wheat is an ingredient. Vegetables, fruits, animals, those are food. Know what I mean? 

One of my conventional farming friends posted this pic on FB the other day (see pic). It was meant to drum up sympathy for the "poor farmer". Well, think of all the other ingredients that go into making bread. Think of the baker who has to mix everything together, the packaging, the wrapping, the shipping, etc. There's a LOT more too it than "Farmers get so little pay". Yes, the bread may retail for that amount, but does the bread seller actual net that much? No. 

Farmers make more money direct marketing, selling value added products, and diversifying. So, I'll disagree farmers need to grow more (corn, wheat, beans) to make more money. Work smarter, not harder.

MO_Cows, I agree conventional farmers get picked on too. I guess lately I'm seeing more of it from conventional farmers. For example, why hate on Chipotle if they want to buy pork that has been raised a certain way? That's their choice, and they're catering to their market. 

It's just the nature of the beast, I guess. You think Chevy and Ford care if they hurt each others' feelings? :gaptooth:


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MDKatie said:


> Maybe it's a Canada thing? Most states (I haven't researched all) it's 3 years. I would think it's 3 yrs across the board for USDA certified.



It could have changed here to 3 years as well but three years is a long wait in an industry that needs sharp pencils.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

wr said:


> I might be misinformed but when I researched it, it's 5 years to be certified organic and you can't skirt that with a piece of paper.


You are misinformed. As an organic dairy we were able to place some rented land into production immediately once the landlord signed an affidavit.

http://rodaleinstitute.org/transition-to-organic/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Wheat is an ingredient. Vegetables, fruits, animals, those are food. Know what I mean?


Wheat is every bit as much a "food" as all the other things.

Grains typically require some further processing to make them *palatable*, but they are still "food" and still one of the most nutritious and easily stored long term


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Wheat is every bit as much a "food" as all the other things.
> 
> Grains typically require some further processing to make them *palatable*, but they are still "food" and still one of the most nutritious and easily stored long term


Ok, wheat is may not the perfect example of what I meant, but it is still an ingredient. Most of the time, it is processed and added to something. Perhaps field corn would have been a better example to use. It has to be manipulated to be useful to us.


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN (Oct 17, 2004)

MDKatie said:


> Ok, wheat is may not the perfect example of what I meant, but it is still an ingredient. Most of the time, it is processed and added to something. Perhaps field corn would have been a better example to use. It has to be manipulated to be useful to us.


Nope, still a bad example. Corn is every bit as much 'food' as anything else. Sure, you need to grind it to make corn bread but do you not have to chunk up an apple before making pie? Boil and mash blueberries to make jelly? Kill, gut, skin and cut up a cow to have burgers? Food is food regardless of form.



MDKatie said:


> Farmers make more money direct marketing, selling value added products, and diversifying. So, I'll disagree farmers need to grow more (corn, wheat, beans) to make more money. Work smarter, not harder.


Here are a few realities for ya on us apparently hard working, not so smart farmers...
Do you realize that the vast majority of grains grown in this country are dry land? This little place, commonly referred to as the 'midwest', generally relies on snowpack and rainfall to make a crop. What 'diversification' crop would you have us grow without irrigation? Maybe you suggest we put in irrigation? Ahhh, well a 600 foot well cased and pumped would generally be right around 25 grand or so before power was ran to it. Then there would be a small pivot... only another 100000 grand or so. Now we can diversify and grow carrots. How many carrots (or other crop) must we grow to pay for the capital improvements? I know we are hard working, not so smart farmers but even I can do that math...

Lets chat about equipment, k. To diversify and grow another crop I am going to need more specialized equipment and since I am not so smart I am going to keep rotating crops, thus I will need to hang on to my nearly quarter million dollar combine. Don't forget, that sucker is rolled into my operating loan for the next decade regardless of where it sits.

Ok, now to become a 'diversified smart farmer' I need a seed drill, cultivation equipment and something to harvest with. I will start with the tractor and get a good used, say 15 year old, JD 7810 (good all around machine). That will be about 70 grand, and yes it will be on my operating loan with everything else... Nothing is mentioned about special storage and handling facilities onsite or hows about where exactly do I truck this new diversified crop too? Facilities in the midwest are setup for grains...

Now, I could become a value added farmer I suppose. What should I add 50000 bushels of corn to add value? A pretty pink bow? Or should I spend another million dollars on a processing facility to make what exactly? Then I gotta ship it somewhere...

I am not trying to be an -----, really. I just get tired of people for the left or right side thinking we just don't know what we are doing. We all understand about diversification and value added but ya'll don't understand that we grow what grows here and that is our income. We diversify into cattle and hogs sometimes, if the market is there.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

GREEN_ALIEN said:


> *I am not trying to be an -----*, really. I just get tired of people for the left or right side thinking we just don't know what we are doing.


Well ya did it, and without even trying! :thumb: That pretty much blew any chance of me wanting to have any type of discussion from here on out.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

My grampa was a farmer and made a good living at it most of his adult life. He raised a variety of crops, pinto beans, sugar beets, alfalfa for both hay and seed, potatoes, corn, and other various grain crops. He never owned any high dollar specialty equipment other than a small combine (six foot cut) pulled behind a borrowed tractor. He did buy a tractor once, kept it for one season and turned it back in to the dealer that fall. I will admit he did have to irrigate due to very little rain in that area, but his shovel was all that was required to do that.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

MDKatie - why dis Chipotle? Because they are hypocrites. 

By being a huge national chain who uses ingredients by the ton, many tons, they go against the "seasonal, local, sustainable" model by their very existence. But they put themselves on a pedestal above the other places like they are somehow more moral about their food. It doesn't sit well with me and apparently a lot of others feel the same way.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

sammyd said:


> You are misinformed. As an organic dairy we were able to place some rented land into production immediately once the landlord signed an affidavit.
> 
> http://rodaleinstitute.org/transition-to-organic/


I obviously misinterpreted your original comment. 

Certainly, if the land has been used in a way that meets the criteria for certified organic, you can get special dispensation but if someone intends to switch from conventional farming to organic, they have the transition period before they can be certified as organic.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

J.T.M. said:


> Yuppers , well , wholesomesness and weedy, infertile, eroded, and over-tilled "organic" fields ".
> :facepalm:


Been doing organic for years on a small scale.
If its weedy, infertile, eroded, then you have no idea what you are doing.

Talk about infertile, try not putting down your petroleum based fertilizer next year and see what grows.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmerDale said:


> It is not my opinion. It is hard yield data on millions upon millions of acres.



We are to the point where there are millions upon millions of acres of organic crops ?


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

GREEN_ALIEN said:


> Do you realize that the vast majority of grains grown in this country are dry land? This little place, commonly referred to as the 'midwest', generally relies on snowpack and rainfall to make a crop. What 'diversification' crop would you have us grow without irrigation? Maybe you suggest we put in irrigation?


A very good point.

I live in the Midwest, and the climate here is very hard on most plants. Grass does very well, and non fruiting trees of many varieties do well, but most other plants are fragile and needs fussing over. 

Wheat and corn do well here because they are grass. They do not CARE that it will be 90 one day and 15 the next. They do not care that it will rain almost every day for weeks on end and then not rain a drop for a month. The soil is great and grass tolerates the changes in moisture and temperature. 

Every plant in my garden requires added water. If the Midwestern farmer does not raise grain, the they will either irrigate (and further drain the aquifir) or graze livestock, because pretty much anything else will need irrigation. And, the aquifir is running out of water.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

wr said:


> I obviously misinterpreted your original comment.
> 
> Certainly, if the land has been used in a way that meets the criteria for certified organic, you can get special dispensation but if someone intends to switch from conventional farming to organic, they have the transition period before they can be certified as organic.


And that's exactly what my original comment stated.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

We are in a crazy world.

We keep trying to up production while we fight the obesity epidemic. Then the government spends more on healthcare, which drives prices up.

Government FSA agents like my brother give loans to create more farmers. Then other programs subsidize to keep prices up, and pay farmers to not farm.

I really don't know or care much about organic, but I do know that lack of food is not our biggest issue.

To MDKatie's point about what is food. When I eat green beans, I don't tear them apart into various chemicals. I run wheat through a grinder and cook with it, using the whole thing.

But that's what we do with corn and other foods. Separate the starch and sugar and fiber and oil, etc, then use those chemicals to make other foods. Basically a chemistry lab. People sucking on sodas and energy drinks all day with high fructose corn syrup is not like eating corn.

So here we are, eating high volume, low nutrition food. Take out the fiber and then take a fiber pill, and go get your colonoscopy because of higher risk of colon cancer. Get your hemorrhoids treated, and on and on. Diabetes epidemic due to obesity and more drinks with cheap sweetener.

Not to mention more machinery and automation helping boost production, and we all get lazier. Many kids on farms are even obese now, as physical labor is limited. No hoeing fields and moving irrigation pipe and bucking hay and digging post holes as I did as a kid.

Yep, we need less work and more food/chemicals!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

sammyd said:


> And that's exactly what my original comment stated.


Which was I believe was in response to my comment about transition so without an affidavit from a landlord who's land hasn't been used conventionally, transition is in fact difficult.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Been doing organic for years on a small scale.
> If its weedy, infertile, eroded, then you have no idea what you are doing.
> 
> Talk about infertile, try not putting down your petroleum based fertilizer next year and see what grows.


Call me sceptical but I don't see how growing organic reduces the need to put back nutrients taken out of the soil. :shrug:


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

mnn2501 said:


> Been doing organic for years* on a small scale.*
> If its weedy, infertile, eroded, then you have no idea what you are doing.
> 
> Talk about infertile, try not putting down your petroleum based fertilizer next year and see what grows.


I am not talking about on a small scale. A small scale is a joke. A small scale is easy to farm organically. I do it with my hay, with my garden. I am talking actual grain farmers who grow grain as their income source. Therefore needing in the high hundreds, and into the thousands of acres to make a living.

I plant pulse crops, and do not use chemical based fertilizers on them. They do fine. 

How is it that the organic guy is somehow replacing his nutrients with "non-chemical" fertilizers, yet maintaining yields? Organic or not, crops need nutrients from somewhere. 

IE. Wheat needs about 2 lbs of available nitrogen to grow a bushel of seed. So if I want 60 bushels, I will apply 120 lbs of N, less what is in the soil. What is the organic guy going to do? And then how is he going to control his weeds in crop and maintain yields?

It is not a simple thing, grain farming. It is not a small scale thing. 

I would put my soil up against any organic guys soil in the area. I can absolutely GUARANTEE, that mine is going to have more organic matter, a more balanced nutrient status, and a far more diverse and dynamic micro organism population. Because I can actually feed the soil with accurate and balanced inputs, where the organic guy has no way of feeding the soil. He can only mine it.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> We are to the point where there are millions upon millions of acres of organic crops ?


You never even looked at the article I posted, huh? Yes we are at that point. Especially in 5 year running studies. 50% less yield in organic grain farming, on millions of acres.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

farmerDale said:


> Because I can actually feed the soil with accurate and balanced inputs, where the organic guy has no way of feeding the soil. He can only mine it.


C'mon Dale, you know better than that. Organic farmers rely on manure, compost, and legume cover crops for fertilization. Adding manure and compost is also a good way to add OM back to the soil. 

Another plus of yields being lower in organic...you don't have to fertilize as heavily to increase yields. Legumes are a good way to add N, and more and more farmers are rolling those cover crops and planting directly into them to help with weed suppression.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmerDale said:


> You never even looked at the article I posted, huh? Yes we are at that point. Especially in 5 year running studies. 50% less yield in organic grain farming, on millions of acres.



True I didn't , it's not like I didn't try but it seems to be a bit much for my connection to handle. 

If you are talking about a 20 minute video it's a bit much to data mine for those of us with limited time and connections. 

A concise synopsis of links is greatly appreciated by those of us on slower connections.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think some are overlooking the difference between organic and holistic farming. 
There can certainly be some overlap in the two systems. 
Most organic farmers try to be holistic within the limits of being organic.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmerDale said:


> I am talking actual grain farmers who grow grain as their income source. Therefore needing in the high hundreds, and into the thousands of acres to make a living.
> 
> .



I have to call you on this one. 
I farm too raising corn and soybeans mainly. On my poor southern Illinois soil I can consistently net over $100 a acre 
The old government standard of 160 acres could earn me a living. (160 x$100 = $16,000) and even the middle hundreds would return $50,000. 
Just north of me the returns on land are easily Four times that, meaning you would need one forth the land there to make a living. 
What is your average net per acre ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MDKatie said:


> C'mon Dale, you know better than that. Organic farmers rely on manure, compost, and legume cover crops for fertilization. Adding manure and compost is also a good way to add OM back to the soil.
> 
> Another plus of yields being lower in organic...you don't have to fertilize as heavily to increase yields. Legumes are a good way to add N, and more and more farmers are rolling those cover crops and planting directly into them to help with weed suppression.


Ok, I gotta ask, where do these organic farmers get this manure and other organic matter to add to their depleted soil? Legumes do add some nitrogen but what about the other nutrients? Farming is just like anything else, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You have to replace what you take out or you end up mining the soil and leaving it useless. Cover crops are nothing new but again they require soil nutrients and do not put anything back in the soil they didn't take out.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I gotta ask, where do these organic farmers get this manure and other organic matter to add to their depleted soil? Legumes do add some nitrogen but what about the other nutrients? Farming is just like anything else, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You have to replace what you take out or you end up mining the soil and leaving it useless. Cover crops are nothing new but again they require soil nutrients and do not put anything back in the soil they didn't take out.


Legumes DO put nitrogen in the soil. So adding a legume to a cover crop mix benefits the soil, and you end up with more N than you started out with. Cover crops have many benefits, and you may be interested to read a bit more about them here.

And it varies throughout the country, but there's no shortage of manure around, at least in this area and I'd venture in most of the country unless you're in an area with NO animal agriculture. Hog farms, broiler farms, dairy farms, beef feedlots, layer farms, turkey farms, etc. Manure contains all essential nutrients needed by crops. 

It would be great if it would be easier to ship manure long distances, so farmers in areas with little animal production could use it, and it would get rid of the excess of manure in areas with lots of animal ag. 

But of course, not all areas of this country (or others) are suited to every kind of agriculture. You have to do what your region will allow.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by MDKatie View Post
> C'mon Dale, you know better than that. Organic farmers rely on manure, compost, and legume cover crops for fertilization. Adding manure and compost is also a good way to add OM back to the soil.
> 
> Another plus of yields being lower *in organic...you don't have to fertilize* as heavily to increase yields. Legumes are a good way to add N, and more and more farmers are rolling those cover crops and planting directly into them to help with weed suppression.


You seem to have missed some key words in farmerDale's post



> Originally Posted by farmerDale View Post
> Because I can actually feed the soil with *accurate and balanced* inputs, where the organic guy has no way of feeding the soil. He can only mine it.


Organic farmers can add manure and use Legumes, but they have no real way of accurately measuring the nutrient inputs. The *chemicals* are identical no matter what the source, and plants can't tell any difference

It's cheaper to make one pass with a spreader using pelletized fertilizer than it is to use a manure spreader and still having to till it in.

Soil tests will show precisely what nutrients are needed, in what quantities, and a custom blended fertilizer can meet those requirements exactly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MDKatie said:


> Legumes DO put nitrogen in the soil. So adding a legume to a cover crop mix benefits the soil, and you end up with more N than you started out with. Cover crops have many benefits, and you may be interested to read a bit more about them here.
> 
> And it varies throughout the country, but there's no shortage of manure around, at least in this area and I'd venture in most of the country unless you're in an area with NO animal agriculture. Hog farms, broiler farms, dairy farms, beef feedlots, layer farms, turkey farms, etc. Manure contains all essential nutrients needed by crops.
> 
> ...


Even if we could use all the manure available it would not replace the nutrients required to produce it. Again there is no such thing as a free lunch. Where do you think that manure comes from? Those cows, chickens and pigs eat a lot of hay and grain that is being taken from someone's farm.... Those farms are being depleted every time a crop is harvested. The only organic farmers I know depend heavily on importing manure and other nutrients from off farm suppliers. Those suppliers are producing those nutrients by using commercially available chemical fertilizer to replace those wonderful organic fertilizers.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to have missed some key words in farmerDale's post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, organic farmers get soil tests done too! AND, manure is tested so they DO know what is going on their fields. There may be some limiting factors, like phosphorus, so they may have to find alternate sources of nitrogen. That's where things like cover crops come into play. It may be cheaper to make one pass with chemicals, but I'm pretty sure organic farmers aren't farming organically to do things as cheaply as possible. PLUS, the cost of commercial fertilizer is likely much higher than manure, as well. 

I swear, it sounds like you conventional farmers think organic farmers just fly by the seat of their pants with no plan or knowledge. Maybe that's the kind of farming you've seen, but I've seen organic farmers who KNOW what they need to do and have a plan and are doing well. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Even if we could use all the manure available it would not replace the nutrients required to produce it. Again there is no such thing as a free lunch. Where do you think that manure comes from? Those cows, chickens and pigs eat a lot of hay and grain that is being taken from someone's farm.... Those farms are being depleted every time a crop is harvested. The only organic farmers I know depend heavily on importing manure and other nutrients from off farm suppliers. Those suppliers are producing those nutrients by using commercially available chemical fertilizer to replace those wonderful organic fertilizers.


So it's not ok for organic farmers to rely on off-farm suppliers, but it's totally ok for conventional farmers to rely on MINED nutrients that come from off the farm?  Is that what you're saying? And you do know that many conventional farmers also rely heavily on manure, right?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm not a pro-organic zealot, I'm simply saying you can't dismiss an entire cropping system because you don't understand how it works. If you're going to do that, you'd be a hypocrite for getting upset when organic fans dismiss ALL of conventional ag because they don't understand how it works. 

For anyone interested, Rodale Institute has a lot of good information on their website. There are a ton of other resources online for those interested. Also, I'm sure many organic farmers would love to chat with people who have questions about how they do things. 

Just as conventional farmers want people to be well informed, I'm sure organic farmers would like that too. So, inform yourself and don't just assume organic can't/doesn't work, because there are a lot of people out there farming organically AND successfully.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MDKatie said:


> So it's not ok for organic farmers to rely on off-farm suppliers, but it's totally ok for conventional farmers to rely on MINED nutrients that come from off the farm?  Is that what you're saying? And you do know that many conventional farmers also rely heavily on manure, right?


yep, I am familiar with numerous ways that farmers deal with their plant nutrition needs. I grew up on a farm, several actually, took four years of ag in high school and worked on a lot of farms over the years. There are a lot of ways to keep a farm fertile and productive but one must put back those nutrients that come out with every pound of product that leaves the farm. 
It is perfectly ok to resupply your soil with off farm resources, what is not ok is the belief that organic farming is self sustainable over the long haul. At some point there has to be balance, which brings in conventional farming to supplement the organic method.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is perfectly ok to resupply your soil with off farm resources, what is not ok is the belief that organic farming is self sustainable over the long haul. At some point there has to be balance, which brings in conventional farming to supplement the organic method.


Well now you're trying to define "sustainable", which probably has as many different definitions as does "natural." I don't think organic farmers claim to be self sustaining. There may be a few who are, but I don't think the majority claim to be.

Here's a good definition (from Sustainable Table) which is what I think most farms mean when they say they're sustainable. 

"In simplest terms, sustainable agriculture is the production of food, fiber, or other plant or animal products using farming techniques that protect the environment, public health, human communities, and animal welfare. This form of agriculture enables us to produce healthful food without compromising future generations' ability to do the same."

So, farms can be sustainable whether or not they're organic, and farms can be unsustainable whether or not they're organic.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> yep, I am familiar with numerous ways that farmers deal with their plant nutrition needs. I grew up on a farm, several actually, took four years of ag in high school and worked on a lot of farms over the years. There are a lot of ways to keep a farm fertile and productive but one must put back those nutrients that come out with every pound of product that leaves the farm.
> It is perfectly ok to resupply your soil with off farm resources, what is not ok is the belief that organic farming is self sustainable over the long haul. At some point there has to be balance, which brings in conventional farming to supplement the organic method.


Perhaps. What is taken off does have to be replaced, though it may be replaced organically.

In ancient China, the farmers bought the waste the cities provided. :yuck: Now, THERE is a job I am glad I never had: carrying buckets of poop to the farmers to sell!:yuck: But, their farms stayed fertile, even though the land was farmed for thousands of years. 

I expect that there was a reason the Chinese boiled what they drank: using human waste on the fields must have made sanitation a nightmare.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Terri said:


> Perhaps. What is taken off does have to be replaced, though it may be replaced organically.
> 
> In ancient China, the farmers bought the waste the cities provided. :yuck: Now, THERE is a job I am glad I never had: carrying buckets of poop to the farmers to sell!:yuck: But, their farms stayed fertile, even though the land was farmed for thousands of years.
> 
> I expect that there was a reason the Chinese boiled what they drank: using human waste on the fields must have made sanitation a nightmare.


Oh I dunno about that. As a kid our out house was set up so the waste was carried out on the fields..... We never had health problems from it. :shrug:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Farmerdale how many pounds of crops do you sell from a acre ? How many pounds of nutrients do you purchase and apply per acre ?0


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> C'mon Dale, you know better than that. Organic farmers rely on manure, compost, and legume cover crops for fertilization. Adding manure and compost is also a good way to add OM back to the soil.
> 
> Another plus of yields being lower in organic...you don't have to fertilize as heavily to increase yields. Legumes are a good way to add N, and more and more farmers are rolling those cover crops and planting directly into them to help with weed suppression.


Conventional farmers use manure, cover crops, legumes, etc. too. Organic guys do not have a corner on the use of organic nutrients, that is for certain!

Legumes add N. I grew 260 acres of Faba beans this year. They are the best n fixing annual legume in the world. Funny though, I am a conventional farmer, guess I shouldn't be doing that! lol 

Look, there are a few decent organic farmers, but most around here are not doing a very good job is all.

I simply ask how the organic guys add the other 15 nutrients required for the soil health and for good crop growth? 

Again, in the article posted, actual crop insurance numbers, show that for small grains in western Canada, organic farming is yielding 50% plus LESS than conventional. This tells me a few things. Weeds are uncontrollable, fertility is impossible to replace, the soil is mined out, erosion from tillage is having a large impact, and the soil is not as healthy. A healthy soil grows vigorous plant growth.

90% of the organic guys here, went back to conventional for those and many other reasons.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> True I didn't , it's not like I didn't try but it seems to be a bit much for my connection to handle.
> 
> If you are talking about a 20 minute video it's a bit much to data mine for those of us with limited time and connections.
> 
> A concise synopsis of links is greatly appreciated by those of us on slower connections.


It is a short article with charts, showing that on hundreds of thousands to millions of acres, crop insurance yields show that organic production is about half of conventional production.

I remember dial up. It sucked!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> I have to call you on this one.
> I farm too raising corn and soybeans mainly. On my poor southern Illinois soil I can consistently net over $100 a acre
> The old government standard of 160 acres could earn me a living. (160 x$100 = $16,000) and even the middle hundreds would return $50,000.
> Just north of me the returns on land are easily Four times that, meaning you would need one forth the land there to make a living.
> What is your average net per acre ?


My average net per acre varies wildly depending on so many things. Weather, prices, which crop... Sometimes it is zero or below, sometimes it is 20 or 30 bucks, and sometimes you get lucky and get 100 or 150 or 200 bucks net. But it is not usually on all the land. Those are the years that you hit a home run! But because of our well and intense rotation with several crops, the chance every crop does well is rare.

This is on some of the best land in Sask. Thick black soil, in a high rainfall area. Crops are peas, faba beans, oats, flax, wheat, barley, canary seed, rye, canola, hay, among several others we rotate through. 

Trouble is, when corn down there is sub four bucks, and guys are paying 3 or 4 hundred bucks an acre for just RENT, it gets hard to pencil in a very good profit. When corn is 7 bucks, any old monkey can make a killing! lol


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I gotta ask, where do these organic farmers get this manure and other organic matter to add to their depleted soil? Legumes do add some nitrogen but what about the other nutrients? Farming is just like anything else, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You have to replace what you take out or you end up mining the soil and leaving it useless. Cover crops are nothing new but again they require soil nutrients and do not put anything back in the soil they didn't take out.


Every single organic farmer up here, uses summerfallow. This is done to control weeds,, but mainly to burn the organic matter in the soil, so it releases nutrients for the next crop. This is a prime example of mining the soil. A few guys use green manures, but green manures do almost nothing. Sure, if it is a legume, it adds some n if properly innoculated, but all it is doing otherwise, is cycling through the nutrients that were already in the soil in the first place. There is more than just nitrogen. 

The biggest thing up here, is the impossibility to control yield robbing weeds. You can give a crop and the soil all it needs. But then when wild mustard, volunteer crops, or wild oats, (name the weed) are not controlled, yield is cut accordingly. Depending on weed emergence timing, and upon how dense the population is. yield reductions of 20 to 60% JUST BECAUSE OF WEED COMPETITION is not uncommon.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> Legumes DO put nitrogen in the soil. So adding a legume to a cover crop mix benefits the soil, and you end up with more N than you started out with. Cover crops have many benefits, and you may be interested to read a bit more about them here.
> 
> And it varies throughout the country, but there's no shortage of manure around, at least in this area and I'd venture in most of the country unless you're in an area with NO animal agriculture. Hog farms, broiler farms, dairy farms, beef feedlots, layer farms, turkey farms, etc. Manure contains all essential nutrients needed by crops.
> 
> ...


Lots of conventional guys are using cover crops like tillage radishes etc. They help keep the soil covered, and are a great asset to all farmers. Organic or not.

The last statement you hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD!!! What I am speaking of here, is not true to a 10 acre pumpkin farmer outside of Chicago. It is not true for a 40 acre blueberry farmer in New Brunswick. 

But it is accurate for a grain farmer in Western Canada. It is simply not possible to replenish the soil accurately, on a scale where grain farming is profitable enough to derive a living from. To control weeds after emergence of the crop. That is why yields are so much lower in organic SMALL GRAIN AGRICULTURE.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Farmerdale how many pounds of crops do you sell from a acre ? How many pounds of nutrients do you purchase and apply per acre ?0


How about I give you two crops I grow, one a legume, and one a cereal?

Faba beans. The seed gets inoculated at seeding time, with a product called tag team, which has n fixing bacteria, and a Phosphate enhancing micro-organism.

So they get Zero "chemical" fertilizer application. Faba bean will yield anywhere from 50 to 80 plus bushels an acre. That is 3000 to 4800 lbs an acre of removed dry matter. Faba will fix a lb of n a bushel of grain harvested. 

So in the following year, if I grow CPS Wheat, If the fabas yield 60, they would add 60 lbs of n to the soil, to be used by the following crop. Therefore, if I am targeting an 80 bushel an acre crop of CPS wheat, I need 160 lbs of N total. 160, less 60, leaves me with 100 more lbs needed. The soil here will release about 10 lbs an acre of N, per per cent of soil organic matter. If my soil has 6% OM, that counts for another 60 lbs, which leaves me 40 lbs of n to apply in the form of n fertilizer to hit my target yield of 80 bushels, or 4800 lbs of wheat an acre.

I will also apply 30 lbs of Phosphate, 20 of Potassium chloride, and maybe 10 lbs of ammonium sulphate. 

You can see why I like faba beans, they save me having to apply up to 60 or 70 lbs of n as fertilizer, and allow me to skip altogether a year of fertilizer needs!


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

farmerDale said:


> Conventional farmers use manure, cover crops, legumes, etc. too. Organic guys do not have a corner on the use of organic nutrients, that is for certain!
> 
> Legumes add N. I grew 260 acres of Faba beans this year. They are the best n fixing annual legume in the world. Funny though, I am a conventional farmer, guess I shouldn't be doing that! lol


I NEVER said otherwise. I was simply replying to your comment that organic farmers only TAKE nutrients and "cannot" replace them. 



> Again, in the article posted, actual crop insurance numbers, show that for small grains in western Canada, organic farming is yielding 50% plus LESS than conventional.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but until you just wrote this, you never specified what area you're talking about. Ok, so perhaps organic doesn't do well in small grain farming in western Canada. I wouldn't even begin to comment on that, because I have absolutely zero clue what the conditions are in western Canada....living in MD and all. I realize the study mentions Manitoba but the conversation sure seemed like it was a general discussion. If you want to only discuss western Canada, there's nothing I can add to any conversation about that.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

MDKatie said:


> I NEVER said otherwise. I was simply replying to your comment that organic farmers only TAKE nutrients and "cannot" replace them.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but until you just wrote this, you never specified what area you're talking about. Ok, so perhaps organic doesn't do well in small grain farming in western Canada. I wouldn't even begin to comment on that, because I have absolutely zero clue what the conditions are in western Canada....living in MD and all. I realize the study mentions Manitoba but the conversation sure seemed like it was a general discussion. If you want to only discuss western Canada, there's nothing I can add to any conversation about that.


Sorry about that! I guess I just figured that if everyone had had a look at the article I put in the thread starter, they would know it was in regards to western Canadian grain farming. 

You HAVE added to the conversation! Seriously, don't worry about it. You are certainly correct, and I have tried to allow that the very different farming sizes, farming types, and farming areas, all have differing results when it comes to organic potential. 

We grain farm and raise lamb. I could for example, sell my lamb as certified organic very easily if I wished to, without changing very much with regards to my production methods. It is simply much easier doing certain types of farming using organic methods. 

The staples of the world, though, are produced in huge quantities on bigger farms, generally. The grains for example. Billions of tons of grain is needed to keep the world fed, and it is hard to do organically on any kind of scale. Raising outdoor meats is pretty easy to do organically, relatively speaking. raising fruits, nuts, etc., is also much simpler to do, because you are not talking about thousand acre farms often, and the trees are in wide enough rows to mow weeds etc.

Do not think you have not contributed! I have enjoyed the conversation, and I appreciate others input. Otherwise I would not post and ask for input... 

Cheers,

Dale


----------

