Letters
To Farm & Country
Take a bow, Ed
Did I really read this in Letters (Feb. 15)? Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Ed Segsworth giving credibility to farmers in his letter about OFA's stance on intervening in the pork industry by saying, "Farmers know their industry in detail and what alternatives are available to them."Speaking out like that, aren't you afraid of repercussions from politicians, environmentalists, animal activists or packers? Fellow farmers, don't let this one go unnoticed. Take a minute, pick up your phone or a pen and congratulate this man. Finally, someone has realized that farmers actually know something.
What a shot of adrenalin!
Sir, stand up and take a bow, for you have just earned my $150 farm registration fee.
Michele Laberge-Gareau
Verner
Draining times
The Washed Out cover story (Feb. 1) prompted me to write.All farmers must fight development, because development in rural areas means nothing but trouble for farmers. In Brant county, as detailed in your story, we see how incompetent all levels of government were in allowing this to happen.
My father allowed a municipal drain under our farm, and now I pay for partial repairs even if the drain carries someone else's water. To protect yourself, farmers must not allow municipal drains to go through or under their property, because it is too much to ask that municipalities be competent at their jobs.
But first, get a lawyer.
Frank Antkiw
Windham Centre
Story yields bountiful responses
It isn't GPS that needs rethinking (Rethinking GPS, Jan. 18), it's rethinking an understanding of the basic principles of scientific reasoning. One shouldn't start with an assumption; one begins by asking the question "whether or no?"The Farm & Country article illustrates that growers and researchers are all looking to improve yields by concentrating on one factor - fertility - which, of course, must be appropriately addressed, but which in and of itself will not solve any or all of the other limitations in the growing environment.
Unfortunately, some of the yield-limiting factors are difficult to address, some are impossible to address, and others may be beyond our abilities as agronomic detectives to even comprehend. With that understanding, we should not reasonably expect any relationship between a yield map and a soil fertility map. In fact, if we continue to collect yield maps and compare them we may find that the high and low yields don't always happen in the same section of the field on a year-to-year basis. Growers who have those conditions in the same field know that the well-drained gravel ridge can experience an increase of as much as 100 bu/acre in a wet year when the high-yielding low lands are suffering yield reduction from constant flooding.
However, one of the variables that we can control is soil fertility. To do this we must know the soil fertility pattern. For many, the question isn't whether grid sampling is preferable to large-scale random sampling, but one of how small the grid should be. The popular use of the hectare or 2.5-acre grid is a matter of obtaining the optimum economic quantity of information.
At $10 per acre, a grid soil sampling program on a farm being sampled every three years is $3.33 per acre. If fertility costs can't be reduced by $3.33 per acre it is highly unlikely the land requires any significant amount of fertilizer; or, if the land is in cash crop production, any further soil sampling. If the farm is a livestock operation we may require strict management of our manure applications and follow up soil samples to monitor fertility level increases. Fertility recommendations on "normal" (20 acres plus) soil tests are traditionally higher than recommendations need be on tests from smaller areas where variability is reduced.
The significant aspect of the bottom line is just that: What is the bottom line? What are my costs and what are my savings? In my experience with hundreds of farmers and thousands of acres the effect on the bottom line is between break even and thousands of dollars. In many cases the savings on fertilizer alone placed in an RRSP would provide satisfactory retirement income.
There is a further step that has not been addressed. If we have a yield map and a soil fertility map we can produce a crop nutrient removal map. In that case one can fertilize to yield or to crop nutrient removal as one wishes. This technology will then make it possible for me to record yields with my yield monitor and make some reasonable analysis of the results of my efforts.
G. Gary Roberts,
MSc, PAg Consulting agronomist,
Ag Tech Consulting Service,
Wallacetown
Satisfied grid samplers
In light of Rethinking GPS (Jan. 18), I'd like to share some research with your readers.As a North American leader in GPS grid soil sampling, Stratford Agri Analysis undertook a mail-in survey with our client farmers to assist in improving our services to better suit their needs. We achieved an impressive 20 per cent response rate to our questionnaire. Here's a sampling of those responses:
* On the question "Do you feel that you are getting good value
for your
investment?" 64.9 per cent of respondents replied "Yes."
* On the question "Were you satisfied with your fertility
recommendations?" 78.6 replied "Yes."
* On the question "Would you recommend this program to your
neighbours?"
77.9 per cent replied "Yes."
Obviously we have a strong, positive response to what is a new
program
using a state-of-the-art technology.
Among the comments we received, the following excerpts are worth
noting:
* "Money saved on not
wasting fertilizer."
* "Knowing exact size of workable acres in a field."
* "Manure analysis provides a more complete picture and so
fertilizer
rates are adjusted accordingly."
* "More accurate area-
specific idea of nutrient requirements."
* "Identifying nutrient
variability."
* "More site-specific for lime."
* "I saved thousands and still reached yield objectives."
As the old expression goes, "The proof in the pudding is in the
eating."
Ronald F. Davis
President,
Stratford Agri Analysis
Stratford
Think pH, too
As an agronomist with more than 25 years of experience in Ontario and five years' working with GPS and precision farming, I'd like to suggest that two key areas were not mentioned in Rethinking GPS (Jan. 18): pH and manure placement.
1) pH - Composite sampling cannot identify areas of low or high
pH because
of averaging (pH 8 combined with
pH 5 = pH 6.5).
* Excellent fertility in the soil will not grow good crops if
the pH is
too low, without adding limestone.
* New pesticide chemistry is pH sensitive. Low or high pH may
result in no
weed control or crop damage.
* GPS technology will allow variable-rate application of lime
as well as
variable-rate application of pesticides.
2) Manure placement - GPS identifies areas of high fertility and
low
fertility. This allows proper placement of manure for better
economic
results and for acceptable environmental results.
* All maps are scaled so that placement may be done with dead
reckoning
(measured distances.) No GPS equipment needed on spreaders.
* Low fertility areas may be built up while avoiding
over-application on
high fertility areas. If GPS equipment is available, then
variable-rate
application is possible.
* Nutrient management planning is an important part of any
livestock
operation, and regulations are becoming more evident in all areas
of the
province. GPS technology allows more precise planning and
concrete evidence
of field area (acres) and field location (geo reference).
Items 1) and 2) are areas of GPS technology that have resulted in
savings
well above the cost of sampling and mapping in the first year.
Many other
areas of crop cultivation will benefit as we utilize this
technology over
the next few years. We will be able to collect and analyze data
that will
enable us to make better informed decisions.
I would suggest that rethinking GPS would include these positive
areas and
it would indicate that, to many farmers, the cost of the
technology was
well worth every dollar spent. The future of agriculture in North
America
will include the use of GPS.
Dale A. Peters, CCA (Mich. and Ohio)
Agronomist, DAP Consulting,
Rodney
Whoa hog
It is my opinion that the hog crisis was caused partly by a lack of slaughter capacity compounded by a legal strike at a major processor in Ontario. The move to establish a new independent hog producer investment corporation won't solve slaughter capacity issues in the province, nor is it new. One only has to go back to the early '60s to see when sincere farmers tried the same thing.If you've forgotten, or weren't around then, it was called FAME - Farmers Allied Meat Enterprises. Some invested their life savings into what was a sure bet, only to receive 10 cents for every dollar invested when this venture failed.
Investors, beware!
Norman Hill
Kenilworth
back