Home » Posts tagged 'contrary farmer'

Tag Archives: contrary farmer

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Farming Controversies Are So Complicated

April 7, 2016

Farming Controversies Are So Complicated

image

​I read an article on the DTN/Progressive Farming website that once again shows how difficult it is to resolve differences of opinion in farming disagreements. The article was an even-sided discussion of possible overproduction of organic crops, (which I plan to write about soon) but a respondent took the occasion to launch into a rather vitriolic attack on organic farming. He was irritated about the organic stand against herbicides. How could organic farmers consider their methods to be environmentally correct, he wrote, when they use cultivation to control weeds in row crops and shun herbicides. Cultivation increases the severity of erosion and uses more fossil fuel than herbicide applications. That’s true as far as I know. Cultivation also releases CO2 to the atmosphere, disturbs soil life negatively, and breaks up soil particles too much, he argued. He concluded by opining that those of us who cultivate row crops, or use flame throwers instead of herbicides to kill weeds, are stupid.

​But herbicide farmers cultivate the soil quite a bit too, during fall and spring when erosion is more severe. At least here in my neck of the woods, fields are cultivated in the fall, so as to be ready for planting as soon as possible in spring, and then cultivated again in the spring ahead of planting. If a no-till planter is involved, the operation is called “no-till.” Beats me. The big trend now is cover crops overwinter, surely a good idea, but that means either more herbicides in spring to get rid of the cover or more cultivation of some kind to smack down the cover crop.

​It leads me to a dismal conclusion. As soon as mankind reaches a population level where agriculture, as opposed the hunting and gathering, is necessary to provide enough food, collapse of the civilization is inevitable.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Factual Science and Maybe Science

March 24, 2016

Factual Science and Maybe Science

 

image

​I am not against genetic modification but only against the way that herbicide manufacturers are using it to justify patenting any plant in nature that interests them and then, in my opinion, trying to use the patents to gain unfair monopolies in the food and farm economy. So whenever I see research favoring agricultural GMOs that sounds to me like only maybe science, not proven science, you can hear my teeth grinding clear across the room. The latest is some research out of Purdue University being publicized all over and in at least one publication, Farm and Dairy, under the headline “Eliminating GMOs Would Raise Food Prices.” Note well that it doesn’t say “could” raise prices but “would” raise prices, insinuating that the findings conclude with a fact, not a possibility.

​Purdue scientists fed data gathered from worldwide cropland production in 2014 into a computer model which then told them that eliminating all GMOs in the United States would mean a decline in corn yields of 11.2%, soybean yields down 5.2%, and cotton down 18.6%. They then stated, as if it were written in stone and not in a computer program, that 250,000 acres of pasture and forest would have to be converted to cropland to make up for that loss. If not, commodity prices for corn would increase as much as 28% and soybeans 22%. Food prices would rise one to two percent or $14 billion to $24 billion a year.

​Snot. This is not proven science but just maybe science. Maybe it’s correct, maybe it’s not. First of all it is based on an assumption that GMO crops produce higher yields than conventional crops. Plenty of data out there indicates that this is only true when GMOs decrease weed and insect infestations enough so the crop can reach its potential.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Deep Trouble Down In The Ground

August 6, 2015

Deep Trouble Down In The Ground  

 

​In my local newspaper column, I harp and carp about what I think is an overuse of farm field tile drains. Our local Ohio farming depends heavily on tile drainage for good crops so being critical of it is precarious. But now there is an uproar in Iowa indicating that perhaps I’m not so far off base. For those of you unfamiliar with tight clay soils, drainage systems using clay or concrete tile or now mostly plastic, to carry the water away underground, are necessary for profitable yields if the land is to be kept in a high state of cultivation. Surface water seeps down through the soil into the tile system and is funneled away into creeks and ditches. Without such drainage, the soil would “lay wet” too long in spring and after rains. Much of this kind of soil is very fertile, so it pays to drain it. In earlier years, just the wettest areas of fields were tiled. (I’ve told this story before but can’t help it. As a child I watched my grandfather digging ditches and installing clay tile by hand. He said the water coming out of a tile outlet was good for a body, especially when it carried little particles of iron rust in it. Then one day he noticed that some of those specks of rust wriggled.) Today, whole fields are crisscrossed systematically every 50 feet or so with tile about two to three feet underground. The result is that after heavy rains, the water flushes out faster, creeks and rivers overflow faster, and flooding on country roads and on city streets seems to be worse although how much of this can be blame directly on tile is disputed. One result that I find almost amusing is that on rural roads drifts of cornstalks now float out of the fields after heavy rains. Worse than snow drifts.

​…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

 

 

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress