Plowing up the Prairie-At A Price-Mpls Newspaper
- Thread starter 0fer2
- Start date
quail hound
Moderator
He's talking about drought resistant corn being new.
Correction, I meant to say more than $100 per acre. I have heard of one guy getting $150 but it is not common.
UGUIDE
Active member
It doesn't read that way to me Quail. Here's the quote from the article.
"In recent years, new varieties of genetically modified corn and soybeans have allowed farmers to push the Corn Belt westward, planting row crops on land once better suited to grazing cattle. Today, that tough prairie sod doesn't have to be plowed, just planted. The new corn and soybean seeds are immune to Roundup; farmers can kill the native grasses with the herbicide, then plant right over them.
It's just one of the new technologies that have helped farmers conquer the dense thatches of grass that thwarted the original pioneers. But the climate in central South Dakota is harsh: Roundup killed the grass, but drought is killing the crops."
quail hound
Moderator
It's true the author doesn't come out and say drought resistant varieties but the paragrahs before that one describe the area as semi arid and where rain is talked about in hundreths of inches. We know RR corn is nothing new but drought resistant RR corn is and its helping facilitate the move westward. I don't think (but I may be wrong) that paragraph was meant to be intentionally misleading.
1pheas4
Moderator
What's the solution? There's obviously a real issue and concern here for multiple reasons (not necessarily bird numbers). How is the problem solved
fsentkilr
Active member
"In recent years, new varieties of genetically modified corn and soybeans have allowed farmers to push the Corn Belt westward, planting row crops on land once better suited to grazing cattle. Today, that tough prairie sod doesn't have to be plowed, just planted. The new corn and soybean seeds are immune to Roundup; farmers can kill the native grasses with the herbicide, then plant right over them."
You don't have to have Roundup Ready corn or beans to plant where you have killed grass with Roundup. You can kill grass with Roundup and notill conventional corn right into it. Roundup corn is immune to roundup sprayed ON the corn. The author obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
You don't have to have Roundup Ready corn or beans to plant where you have killed grass with Roundup. You can kill grass with Roundup and notill conventional corn right into it. Roundup corn is immune to roundup sprayed ON the corn. The author obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
quail hound
Moderator
So the whole article and issue is fabricated?
1pheas4
Moderator
Most everyone is effected by poor land management practices performed by some. The list is very long and the cost is enormous--the cost to tax payers, neighboring land owners, risks to our health, wildlife, and safety.
With all due respect Fsen--there is no need to purchase land or own a ag. business to express concern, opinion, or suggest solutions to a very real, problematic reoccurring trend within ag. business.
:cheers:Regarding the article-Mistakes are almost always made in some of the stories we read. The important thing is that it brings to light what those of us have observed happening to the natural world we love on the prairie-and the facts are the facts, whether or not you like them or believe it is up to you.
All it takes is to listen what is being said and being done on the land-that truth surrounds you and its your choice to ignore and dismiss it or acknowledge what is happening-THEN perhaps something can be done. When the Hefty brothers-a real name, FYI-say that more corn is being grown on less land, thats BS in SDak. When someones says its my land and I'll do what I want on it-that strikes me as arrogant as what is done and in aggregate hurts us all.
Big ag-Monsnato-Dupont-Dow-Cargill-Archer DanielsMidland, the bottom line is a closed loop complete control of business. If you think they give a damn-we're all numbers and pawns to their whims, and too big too fail applies here-so they continue to strengthen their control and dominance and all of our dependency on them. How is that good?
Regarding even having this discussion if there weren't birds to hunt-its a good point. But for myself, its the whole experience, good gosh, the spectacular sunrises and sunsets, the golden hues and startlingly blue waters, the sounds of life-wind in the grass, squawking cranes, chirping meadowlarks, talking to the farmers and ranchers about their operation, their families, their adventures, their politics, their crops and livestock, small town cafes and bars, open arms.
Its being able to discover it all, explore, learn, absorb, relax, recharge. strengthen the bond between man and nature. Geez the killing is such a small portion of it although it is a part of it.
Others look at it as-Its mine and I will tear it all down and rebuild it the way I want it and thats all that matters.
Dan
All it takes is to listen what is being said and being done on the land-that truth surrounds you and its your choice to ignore and dismiss it or acknowledge what is happening-THEN perhaps something can be done. When the Hefty brothers-a real name, FYI-say that more corn is being grown on less land, thats BS in SDak. When someones says its my land and I'll do what I want on it-that strikes me as arrogant as what is done and in aggregate hurts us all.
Big ag-Monsnato-Dupont-Dow-Cargill-Archer DanielsMidland, the bottom line is a closed loop complete control of business. If you think they give a damn-we're all numbers and pawns to their whims, and too big too fail applies here-so they continue to strengthen their control and dominance and all of our dependency on them. How is that good?
Regarding even having this discussion if there weren't birds to hunt-its a good point. But for myself, its the whole experience, good gosh, the spectacular sunrises and sunsets, the golden hues and startlingly blue waters, the sounds of life-wind in the grass, squawking cranes, chirping meadowlarks, talking to the farmers and ranchers about their operation, their families, their adventures, their politics, their crops and livestock, small town cafes and bars, open arms.
Its being able to discover it all, explore, learn, absorb, relax, recharge. strengthen the bond between man and nature. Geez the killing is such a small portion of it although it is a part of it.
Others look at it as-Its mine and I will tear it all down and rebuild it the way I want it and thats all that matters.
Dan
carptom1
Well-known member
No the majority would not be that concerned. As land owners, there is no way you can make them happy. If you farm all the land you piss them off and are greedy. If you lose money by " leaving some for the wildlife" then charge a tresspass fee, you are greedy. Most landowners on here are interested in some wildlife preservation, or they wouldn't be wasting there time on a site like this. Thinking things are going back to the way they were is immature. I even gave up on my " glory days" a few years back. I think some on here need to do the same. It does strike me funny that many of the same that tout conservative values and capitalism, change there tune when it comes to what a farmer can do with his land.
1pheas4
Moderator
So let me see if I have this correct; Sportsmen should just shut up, mind their own, and let it all disappear because their concern over habitat loss exists solely for what your implying as "selfish reasons"? Is this your point?
Is it right for a sportsmen/conservationist to be concerned, whether their concern is rooted within passion and love for wildlife or hunting? Does it matter what their reason? Is their concern not justified?
You've painted quite a nasty picture of your fellow sportsmen Carpt
. Anyway, as we know sportsmen are the "premier conservationist". It's our love for wildlife, nature, and the outdoors that motivates the sportsmen to preserve what is natural and good (heritage, tradition). It began with Theodore Roosevelt. A hunter/sportsmen that was pained when he witnessed wildlife and habitat in distress do to poor choices and actions of some of our fellow human brothers. Would he have felt the same passion if he was not a sportsmen? I would hope so and I believe he would. But we really can't say.
I for one, hunter or not, have always had a passion for the outdoors/wildlife/habitat. I believe the MAJORITY of your fellow sportsmen can say the same.
:cheers:
Last edited:
quail hound
Moderator
So let me see if I have this correct; Sportsmen should just shut up, mind their own, and let it all disappear because their concern over habitat loss exists solely for what your implying as "selfish reasons"? Is this your point?
Is it right for a sportsmen/conservationist to be concerned, whether their concern is rooted within passion and love for wildlife or hunting? Does it matter what their reason? Is their concern not justified?
You've painted quit a nasty picture of your fellow sportsmen Carpt
Anyway, as we know sportsmen are the "premier conservationist". It's our love for wildlife, nature, and the outdoors that motivates the sportsmen to preserve what is natural and good (heritage, tradition). It began with Theodore Roosevelt. A hunter/sportsmen that was pained when he witnessed wildlife and habitat in distress do to poor choices and actions of some of our fellow human brothers. Would he have felt the same passion if he was not a sportsmen? I would hope so and I believe he would. But we really can't say.
I for one, hunter or not, have always had a passion for the outdoors/wildlife/habitat. I believe the MAJORITY of your fellow sportsmen can say the same.
Great post 1pheas.:10sign:
Plus touting conservative, capitalist values when this destuction is being pushed (mainly) by RFS corn ethanol mandates is IMO a weak arguement. Given a choice I wouldn't run that crap, blended fuel in my truck, the savings per gallon at the pump doesnt make up for the loss in mileage.
carptom1
Well-known member
That's my point. Many want to scream about capitalism, unless it affects them. If it wasn't about the birds and/or screaming about free access to hunting grounds with abundant cover and birds, many on here could care less about the land. I feel like I do my part. I contribute what I can to conservation groups. I also support my farmer in SD with some cash to supplement him planting some food plots and not draining his sloughs. That alone makes all the property around him better. Even in a horrible drought we saw hundreds and thousands of birds. For that my sons and I get a couple 5 day hunts. Does it cost some cash? Sure. Am I a rich guy? Not hardly. I save for our hunts yearly. I don't drive a fancy truck, smoke, or drink. It is all about priorities for me. I probably spent 4k on the two trips. That includes lodging, licenses, food and gas. 2k of that went to the farmer. Many on here would say he is greedy, or I am a fool for paying for access. So someone who sends 25 bucks to PF is a better conservationist. I just get tired of it. We even had a guy say the Fed's should confiscate farmer's land in order to create a permanant hunting reserve. We all wish people would do what is right. I tire of hearing about the farmer's combines or expensive trucks. It sounds like sour grapes to me. " how much is enough", " their greedy". Really? How many of you guys tell your employer that you make enough, or " no thanks, I don't need a raise today". I don't think you can complain about access, or how someone elses property is taken care of, unless you are willing to put a little skin in the game. A few bucks to PF/QF is not getting it done.
Last edited:
fsentkilr
Active member
That was a very good post. Its nice to see that not everybody on here has it in for landowners.
moellermd
Super Moderator
If saying I should be able to use my ground in a way that is execptable to the government and is considered standard pratice is arrogant, how would we classify telling others that they are doing is wrong despite the fact that it is standard practice and instead should be doing what you think is right?
moellermd
Super Moderator
What's the solution? There's obviously a real issue and concern here for multiple reasons (not necessarily bird numbers). How is the problem solved
I think the market will solve some of the problem. Prices are high after two bad years in a row. A normal year or two will temper the desire to plant more acres. Most of the pasture that I see being turned to crop production is not native in the first place. It has been sprayed for weeds (native Forbes) and over taken by cool season grasses.
I have more in common with the landowners than the "25.00 dollar conservationist". I will say that I take every individual at face value, I have made that a point in life. So I assume that the "25.00 conservationist", has a point of view, just as I assume so do the "landowners". I do not necessarily agree with the point of view however. A lot of times it might be a struggle to make a contribution of 25.00. As well, there a lot of landowners, who could do more. For me the argument that bird hunting and bag limits is a childish argument, as is the fact that "most" of hunting habitat is "not natural". Most of our bird hunting here is more like bird watching. I will assume it will be that way in the future. The bird as subject here is an invader itself, like all of us! To me the thought that we are altering an ecosystem, with no idea, or thought to restoring it, is something to give a rational person pause. The seminal point is this, Is it acceptable, and right of the capitalistic society, to amass money, and power, even if by doing so, destroys, the land, pollutes water with herbicides, pesticides, which does in fact make people, other Americans downstream sick? Because we now are down trail with natural gas fracking, and surface water pollution, we could avoid. If we save the water, we need to save the land too, or we will have the farmers, oil/gas exploration, mining concerns, and timbering companies set the capitalistic goals of the decline of our society, they do it right now, with the lesson the Tobacco industry taught them.
Last edited:
mnmthunting
Banned
I'm always looking for it, and I know what "native Prairie" is.
Fact is, if it's plowable it's been plowed. With very few exceptions.
Almost all the native grasslands left are very rocky, hilly and non-farmable.
I haven't seen any corn drilled into sod, RR or not.
I've seen a lot of grass and pastureland tilled and planted though.
Here You go.
Native grasslands.
Fact is, if it's plowable it's been plowed. With very few exceptions.
Almost all the native grasslands left are very rocky, hilly and non-farmable.
I haven't seen any corn drilled into sod, RR or not.
I've seen a lot of grass and pastureland tilled and planted though.
Here You go.
Native grasslands.
1pheas4
Moderator
Moe, I wasn't clear when I asked what's the solution (sorry). I was referring to most of the habitat coming out of the ground--not necessarily native prairie alone.
Even when prices come down, I can't imagine hedge rows (for example) being "re-installed". You know what I mean? Why would a land owner put the time to tile, round-up, remove such an area only to turn around a few years later and put it all back?