genetically alter grains

And that production cost per bushel is fine but I know guys who have lower and have hog operation. You take 140$ of Cost out per acre and you damn right you can make some margin(that average cost of fertilizer per acre in my area). So that puts our production cost right around 230$ per acre and we have county t of 168.... so $1.37. I got hog guys with 200 APH.... lower that to 1.15... need I go on?

Every operation is different and yes Gabe's operation is very interesting and appears profitable but that much more than others? Not really
 
petrey10 said:
And that production cost per bushel is fine but I know guys who have lower and have hog operation. You take 140$ of Cost out per acre and you damn right you can make some margin(that average cost of fertilizer per acre in my area). So that puts our production cost right around 230$ per acre and we have county t of 168.... so $1.37. I got hog guys with 200 APH.... lower that to 1.15... need I go on?

Every operation is different and yes Gabe's operation is very interesting and appears profitable but that much more than others? Not really
Click to expand...

I have asked my neighbors that are pretty good what I call Monsanto farmers what there cost of producing corn is, the answer I get is between $3.70 and $3.90. That was a couple of years ago so it might be a little lower now. As for his runoff in the video he stated that his infiltration rate is 8 inches an hour, so there won't be much runoff. As for his soil being better that is because he has made it better over the course of 20 years. His organic matter is way above the average. I am confused about your statements. When I asked you about if you would like to know how to raise $1.42 corn you said it did not work that way. Now you are talking about 1.37 corn. I must have missed something. The origin of this conversation had to do with non gmo corn yielding as well as gmo corn. I think Gabe has indicated that and I can name others that feel they are getting a little yield advantage with non gmo corn. Anyway I am enjoying this conversation very much and I thank you for your participation in it.
 
haymaker said:
I have asked my neighbors that are pretty good what I call Monsanto farmers what there cost of producing corn is, the answer I get is between $3.70 and $3.90. That was a couple of years ago so it might be a little lower now. As for his runoff in the video he stated that his infiltration rate is 8 inches an hour, so there won't be much runoff. As for his soil being better that is because he has made it better over the course of 20 years. His organic matter is way above the average. I am confused about your statements. When I asked you about if you would like to know how to raise $1.42 corn you said it did not work that way. Now you are talking about 1.37 corn. I must have missed something. The origin of this conversation had to do with non gmo corn yielding as well as gmo corn. I think Gabe has indicated that and I can name others that feel they are getting a little yield advantage with non gmo corn. Anyway I am enjoying this conversation very much and I thank you for your participation in it.
Click to expand...

That was to show you that achieving that cost per bushel is attainable by diversifying with livestock

And no he doesn't change the soil maps.... soil type is soil type... he started with above average soil compared to the county. I'm trying to show you that there are many factors in this. You aren't looking at all the facts here. You are taking word of mouth as fact.

If you planted the gmo in same type... same space as non gmo. Odds are that gmo beats it. If ole Gabe himself planted gmo in his soil... my money is on gmo. Now if you want to use crap seed or seed wrong for that soil I bet you could keep up.

Diversity is great and his moisture absorption rate is awesome. His organic material is well built up.

Randy Dowdy just produced 525bu per acre... you think Gabe can do that ? No the answer is no!
 
petrey10 said:
That was to show you that achieving that cost per bushel is attainable by diversifying with livestock

And no he doesn't change the soil maps.... soil type is soil type... he started with above average soil compared to the county. I'm trying to show you that there are many factors in this. You aren't looking at all the facts here. You are taking word of mouth as fact.

If you planted the gmo in same type... same space as non gmo. Odds are that gmo beats it. If ole Gabe himself planted gmo in his soil... my money is on gmo. Now if you want to use crap seed or seed wrong for that soil I bet you could keep up.

Diversity is great and his moisture absorption rate is awesome. His organic material is well built up.

Randy Dowdy just produced 525bu per acre... you think Gabe can do that ? No the answer is no!
Click to expand...


And you asked neighbors ??? Lol you asked a farmer to tell you the truth about their operation? Lol come on... you really don't get the culture. You never get the truth at the "coffee shop" bud.
 
petrey10 said:
That was to show you that achieving that cost per bushel is attainable by diversifying with livestock

And no he doesn't change the soil maps.... soil type is soil type... he started with above average soil compared to the county. I'm trying to show you that there are many factors in this. You aren't looking at all the facts here. You are taking word of mouth as fact.

If you planted the gmo in same type... same space as non gmo. Odds are that gmo beats it. If ole Gabe himself planted gmo in his soil... my money is on gmo. Now if you want to use crap seed or seed wrong for that soil I bet you could keep up.

Diversity is great and his moisture absorption rate is awesome. His organic material is well built up.

Randy Dowdy just produced 525bu per acre... you think Gabe can do that ? No the answer is no!
Click to expand...

Gabe can't do that in Bismarck ND. I do not know Randy Dowdy but it must be cool to raise 525 bu. corn. I do not know how profitable that is, I think there is optimum that we can get to before we get to maximum. There may be situations where GMO might help but if no more gmo corn was planted for the next ten years we would still have plenty of corn unless there was a major drought. Most of the corn grown in my area is grown using residual herbicides. When I first used glyphosate in the 80s 8 oz. was the full rate and I couldn't afford it. Now I know of people using 60 oz. and it just kills grasses. Yes livestock integration is a big advantage. Well he has changed his soil maybe not the type but if you double the organic matter it may not be typical of the soil of that type and may perform like a different type. The costs per bushel numbers did not come from coffee shop where the first liar doesn't have a chance. I was not asking for in depth secrets just ball park figures in a one on one conversation. What would you say the average cost of production on a bushel of corn is in your area? Good conversation.
 
haymaker said:
Gabe can't do that in Bismarck ND. I do not know Randy Dowdy but it must be cool to raise 525 bu. corn. I do not know how profitable that is, I think there is optimum that we can get to before we get to maximum. There may be situations where GMO might help but if no more gmo corn was planted for the next ten years we would still have plenty of corn unless there was a major drought. Most of the corn grown in my area is grown using residual herbicides. When I first used glyphosate in the 80s 8 oz. was the full rate and I couldn't afford it. Now I know of people using 60 oz. and it just kills grasses. Yes livestock integration is a big advantage. Well he has changed his soil maybe not the type but if you double the organic matter it may not be typical of the soil of that type and may perform like a different type. The costs per bushel numbers did not come from coffee shop where the first liar doesn't have a chance. I was not asking for in depth secrets just ball park figures in a one on one conversation. What would you say the average cost of production on a bushel of corn is in your area? Good conversation.
Click to expand...


Again you are talking apples to oranges... two years ago corn was 5$ ... NH3 was $1000per ton... LPwas 5.75 per gal

Cost per bushel is very operation specific and while guys need to know it it's not really the way you talk expenses... cost per acre would be a better term and it's roughly $360 per acre ... plus ur cash rent if you don't own acres which most don't own all their acres... heck majority of acres aren't owned




Again I know farmers with 200 ave and I see 130 ave farms all in same county.





And no he doesn't change his soil type.... it is what it is you can't do squat to change the type. It's not how soil typing works please stop trying to justify that
 
petrey10 said:
Again you are talking apples to oranges... two years ago corn was 5$ ... NH3 was $1000per ton... LPwas 5.75 per gal

Cost per bushel is very operation specific and while guys need to know it it's not really the way you talk expenses... cost per acre would be a better term and it's roughly $360 per acre ... plus ur cash rent if you don't own acres which most don't own all their acres... heck majority of acres aren't owned




Again I know farmers with 200 ave and I see 130 ave farms all in same county.





And no he doesn't change his soil type.... it is what it is you can't do squat to change the type. It's not how soil typing works please stop trying to justify that
Click to expand...

When a farmer sells his corn he sells bushels corn the last I checked corn was under $3 here. If he knows his bushels cost him more than that to produce they are losing money. If they are spending $360 plus land costs the all they have to do is the math to know what their corn cost to produce. Whether they own or rent land the land the cost is the same, opportunity costs. If it will make you feel better I will concede that he can not change his soil type.
 
petrey10 said:
https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamobile?contentidonly=true&contentid=2017/01/0007.xml

Just released today...
Click to expand...

I am not arguing the positive effects of ethanol. I am just say there are some negative effects as well. I still struggle with a form of energy that is considered ''renewable" but its so heavily dependent on oil.

The USDA is always on top of creating articles that favor that ag community. Thats great but there are never the negative aspects. Nothing is free my friend. Everything has a negative side.

Good conversation guys!
 
3car said:
I am not arguing the positive effects of ethanol. I am just say there are some negative effects as well. I still struggle with a form of energy that is considered ''renewable" but its so heavily dependent on oil.

The USDA is always on top of creating articles that favor that ag community. Thats great but there are never the negative aspects. Nothing is free my friend. Everything has a negative side.

Good conversation guys!
Click to expand...

http://agfax.com/2017/01/16/corn-ba...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Yet again more info showing you are off base in your thinking
 
ranchodeluxe said:
Global warming has already been proven, what's left to debate is the level of human involvement in that warming. That's where you get called a "denier". Just do, or say anything to let the radicals know you aren't drinking the Kool-Aid, they have all kinds of nice names to call you.
Click to expand...

Global Warming has never been proven be it human induced or otherwise.

What has been proven is natural climate variability, but humans have known about this since there have been humans.

The Earth warms and cools and no data that has been collected in human existence has been unusual in the climate record, as best as humans can reconstruct it.

What is easy to prove however is that humans tend to do much better when the Earth is warmer rather than cooler. So if you are pro human you should probably also be pro warm.
 
AtTheMurph said:
Global Warming has never been proven be it human induced or otherwise.

What has been proven is natural climate variability, but humans have known about this since there have been humans.

The Earth warms and cools and no data that has been collected in human existence has been unusual in the climate record, as best as humans can reconstruct it.

What is easy to prove however is that humans tend to do much better when the Earth is warmer rather than cooler. So if you are pro human you should probably also be pro warm.
Click to expand...

I don't remember it but they tell me there used to be a glacier here. I don't know why it warmed up but if it had not warmed up the pheasant hunting would not be as good as it is.
 
Science proves that the planet is on a warming trend (global warming is the name the activists used to describe it). If you deny that, you deny science. It stands to reason that with more people on the planet than at any other time in history, and more on the way, as well as a huge portion of the World's fossil fuels being consumed in a 100 year period, that we contribute to it. Now, the science that is not settled is the question as to what extent human activity affects this warming, and if so, what are the impacts of that activity over time? I highly suspect that there is something to it, but damn sure ain't going to state it as fact. It doesn't help fair-minded people when the hacks that are selling global warming, or climate change, or whatever we are calling it this week, are tied to corrupt forces like Al Gore who stood to become the richest man in the world through being a ground floor investor in the Chicago climate exchange, which stood to be a $13 trillion/year scam. If China and India were not still putting coal-fired plants online everyday, and if they did not have a total disregard for the environment, it would make sense to take action out of abundance of caution. But if we take it upon ourselves without forcing the rest of the World to change, it just puts us at an even bigger disadvantage economically.
 
haymaker said:
When a farmer sells his corn he sells bushels corn the last I checked corn was under $3 here. If he knows his bushels cost him more than that to produce they are losing money. If they are spending $360 plus land costs the all they have to do is the math to know what their corn cost to produce. Whether they own or rent land the land the cost is the same, opportunity costs. If it will make you feel better I will concede that he can not change his soil type.
Click to expand...

Bushels vary greatly year to year that's why it's not used as much when talking expenses.

For example my county ave is 164. But we produced well over 200 bushel corn this year. We would've lost our reads if we didn't but those bushels bailed us out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top