Turn that sod over boys, the drought is over
- Thread starter onpoint
- Start date
If it goes lower it will be much lower, we will have they the producers screaming for ADP subsidies in the next farm bill. Just so we know, the rest of the world is grappling for the grain dollar trade too, with help from Monsato, Cat, and J.D., with your governments approval and foreign aid to grease the skids. who's your buddy?
UGUIDE
Active member
Chuck, what is your point? These type of posts where you make some comment in the title and then just post a link to an article do this forum nor anyone else any favors. It's easy to find all kinds of bad news in the media today.
If you want to post a link to an article please add some meaningful insightful editorial and why you are actually referencing the article.
This article is from Virginia.
Who in the heck would forecast record crops in 2014 when in the middle one one of the worst droughts?
Looks like he posted a South Dakota newspaper, who reprinted an article with a qoute from a Federal Chief Crop Analyst??? It's an opinion, by hopefully a creditable source. He let's you determine the source and it's credibility. :cheers:
UGUIDE
Active member
I would argue that both the forum and the topic require more than that. Posting a slam and a link is unacceptable IMO and the moderators should be all over it.
If you enjoy this forum we all need to be moderators and police the forum and encourage and discourage our brothers when needed.
mnmthunting
Banned
Chris, I think think is one of those "small things" readers can take whatever they want out of it. Small things don't worry me.
small munsterlander owner
Banned
uguide u should apply for a moderator job seems you disagree with many other forum members posted threads lately the moderators may need some help moving post to the correct states page & erasing forum members articles that some dont find appealing or a good read or good topic...???
let the forum members post what they want outside of cuss words & bad mouthing anothers dog lol
let the forum members post what they want outside of cuss words & bad mouthing anothers dog lol
onpoint
Active member
Chris, it was just pointing out that it seems that in just about anything. There are those that try and get people all pumped up, saying that the best ever is coming. It happens all the time in Waterfowl forecasts. They will tell hunters that ducks are the highest ever, since counts began. Then hunters get all cranked up...start buying gear, ammo, guns, booking trips, Etc. only to be disappointed year after year, but each year...again ducks are thicker then hair on a dog the predictions say again.
This link was another prime example. Talking record harvest, speaking as though the drought is over. Just like some duck hunters, some farmers want to believe that these articles are some kind of prophecy or something. I believe some are so despite to believe these predictions. That they just may do things they might not have, if they hadn't took so much stake in what they have read. Like till more ground, put in more of a certain crop, Etc.
I only post things like this to stir up conversation. It's the off season. Just how much can you talk about a pheasant, a dog or a gun? Other things have to come into play or might as well shut the site down between Jan. and Sept.
I'll certainly refrain from doing so. It seems you are upset about me doing so but there would be little to keep my attention here. Maybe that's what some would like. If you don't want me posting..just say the word.
Onpoint
This link was another prime example. Talking record harvest, speaking as though the drought is over. Just like some duck hunters, some farmers want to believe that these articles are some kind of prophecy or something. I believe some are so despite to believe these predictions. That they just may do things they might not have, if they hadn't took so much stake in what they have read. Like till more ground, put in more of a certain crop, Etc.
I only post things like this to stir up conversation. It's the off season. Just how much can you talk about a pheasant, a dog or a gun? Other things have to come into play or might as well shut the site down between Jan. and Sept.
I'll certainly refrain from doing so. It seems you are upset about me doing so but there would be little to keep my attention here. Maybe that's what some would like. If you don't want me posting..just say the word.
Onpoint
UGUIDE
Active member
I like what you post Chuck and you keep things rolling just please post some content with it like what you just posted in this quote. It also helps other users and readers understand better and post accordingly instead arousing the negative post fest in all of us.
I just read in Agweek an article from a guy in wilmot Sd that planting corn corn corn was the only answer to sustainable agriculture. Really?
The media speaks out of both sides of its mouth. Why? To capture the market.
mnmthunting
Banned
I trust the media like I trust politicians.
For instance.
All the media needs to do is mention the loss of "Native Prairie" and it gets people all worked up. Heck! there was more land under plow in 1910 then there is now. Lots more in 1975 then there is now.
It's NOT native prairie even if it was plowed one time.
It's bad enough to lose CRP, Hay land, Pastureland etc. And all those shelter belts and wind breaks were tilled land in 1910. So were much of the US wildlife refuges, state land and DNR land, Game management areas. Lots of this protected land was in crops as late as 1975.
For instance.
All the media needs to do is mention the loss of "Native Prairie" and it gets people all worked up. Heck! there was more land under plow in 1910 then there is now. Lots more in 1975 then there is now.
It's NOT native prairie even if it was plowed one time.
It's bad enough to lose CRP, Hay land, Pastureland etc. And all those shelter belts and wind breaks were tilled land in 1910. So were much of the US wildlife refuges, state land and DNR land, Game management areas. Lots of this protected land was in crops as late as 1975.
fsentkilr
Active member
oldandnew maybe you could tell me what ADP subsidies are? I've never heard of them. Now LDP (loan deficiency payments) I have, and they are linked to low prices. I'm just wondering if their is a subsidy I'm not aware of.
onpoint
Active member
I'll respectively disagree. You going to say, they had more land under plow with horses and steam engine then today with the massive equipment and storage capacity of today?
mnmthunting
Banned
Onpoint, FUN! Thanks for the conversation.
Lets just start. You know that in 1910 that about 32% of the USA labor force was on the land, farming and directly related.
OK, Worked with mules and horses and for sure steam power. Check it out those steam powered tractors, BIG machines could turn over the sod, I mean BIG TIME.
So could the BIG HITCH. Go to Your County Archives, check out the county land status in 1910.
Get back to me.:thumbsup:
Lets just start.
You know that in 1910 that about 32% of the USA labor force was on the land, farming and directly related. OK, Worked with mules and horses and for sure steam power. Check it out those steam powered tractors, BIG machines could turn over the sod, I mean BIG TIME.
So could the BIG HITCH. Go to Your County Archives, check out the county land status in 1910.
Get back to me.:thumbsup:
You are correct, the LDP's are the program I was talking about, back 40 years ago they were ADP's, associated defincieny payments, ( my grandad got paid for crops he didn't even plant, and probably something he didn't want to grow to reduce surpluses), over time it became LDP's as currently. I have no disagreement with it. I thought I would never see that unqouted on the farm stations! In the last few years it was way to low! Be nice to have an even market, rather than a gas type market we have now. As I say, you are correct, 50 years back you might want to do a farm plan and grow cotton, or peanuts in Kansas! Grandad used Kaiffer corn, they wanted he to grow something else!
fsentkilr
Active member
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/landuse.html
This shows the total amount of farm acres on the graph from 1900 until now. It doesn't break it down to tillable acres but they state tillable acres in the US haven't increased. I am sure the tillable acres are about the same now as then. I think we are just now getting corn acres as high as they were in the 30's. The tillable acres have stayed around 350 to 400 million acres pretty consistantly. The total amount of farmland has came down since 1950, so while the tillable acres has stayed fairly constant, the percentage of tillable acres has increased. The bigger equipment has just lead to bigger farms not more total tillable acres. If you google Us Ag Census you can go back and pick the years and compare them. Its gonna take a while because they are quite extensive. I just looked through 1900 it took forever.
This shows the total amount of farm acres on the graph from 1900 until now. It doesn't break it down to tillable acres but they state tillable acres in the US haven't increased. I am sure the tillable acres are about the same now as then. I think we are just now getting corn acres as high as they were in the 30's. The tillable acres have stayed around 350 to 400 million acres pretty consistantly. The total amount of farmland has came down since 1950, so while the tillable acres has stayed fairly constant, the percentage of tillable acres has increased. The bigger equipment has just lead to bigger farms not more total tillable acres. If you google Us Ag Census you can go back and pick the years and compare them. Its gonna take a while because they are quite extensive. I just looked through 1900 it took forever.
Last edited:
Onpoint, FUN! Thanks for the conversation.
Lets just start.
OK, Worked with mules and horses and for sure steam power. Check it out those steam powered tractors, BIG machines could turn over the sod, I mean BIG TIME.
So could the BIG HITCH. Go to Your County Archives, check out the county land status in 1910.
Get back to me.:thumbsup:
O.K. I had though about this before, might as well bring it up here, since it applies. I do not dispute the tilled ground statement. But it is not that alone. We are focusing on the issue here. Back in the 1970's-1980's we had spectacular pheasants, quail, dove and rabbit hunting. We had more ground tilled, we had a sparce population of turkeys, and deer. Our Timber tracts were burned, to control ticks, get a flush of grass early in the spring, our pasture grass was mostly native,( little fescue), cattle grazed most of the time. We raised crops, but there was little herbicides, little pesticides, it was 30"-36" rows, harvested crops were left in stubble, with grass infusion, and weeds around the field, edge was 30'-60' around hedgerows, and cattle grazed that too, maybe even the hogs. Is it possible, that the higher cropping rates, without the INTENSIVE, part we see today, is beneficial to upland game? It reduces tall, mature timber, like we have now, over grown in cedar trees, reduces deer, turkey habitat. tree roosts for raptors, denning areas for land predators, It might not be the tillable acres, it might be the pesticides, herbicides, the worked ground may be not be material here. An old farmer told me years ago, that a pheasant basically needs a corn field to be satisfied. That was an old cornfield! sumac in some wasted draws, native prairie grass borders, corn stubble, lots of waste corn on the ground, no tree within 3 miles over 20' tall, summer pasture around for nesting or winter wheat, or later harvested alfalfa. A slough across the section. Maybe it's the intensity that is the issue, rather than what the ground can give, and regenerate, and do again, repeatedly? The question would be, is it as profitable, to farm with the old system, reduce imputs drastically, using cultivation, use CREP, CRP, WRP. around the edges, to help the cashflow. Can we model this and make it work? That is what I am trying. I won't get a covey of quail on 20@, but the place never has! or 300 pheasants in a section, but I think we can make a profit, have song birds, game birds worth pursuing, rabbits, prairie flowers in the spring, clear creeks, and interesting topography to gaze on all year long. That's my idea. :cheers:
onpoint
Active member
Onpoint, FUN! Thanks for the conversation.
Lets just start.
OK, Worked with mules and horses and for sure steam power. Check it out those steam powered tractors, BIG machines could turn over the sod, I mean BIG TIME.
So could the BIG HITCH. Go to Your County Archives, check out the county land status in 1910.
Get back to me.:thumbsup:
I just so happen to own 5 draft horses. I have been in the North Star Draft Horse Assoc for more then 16 years. Also involved in a steam thrashing show. I know something about just how much ground these two methods can turn under.
Also, this link will show how much wet-lands has been turned into farm land just in Minnesota since the late 1800's. Refer to page 8-9
http://www.mncenter.org/Portals/0/6 - publications/research reports/Wetlands Report.pdf
________________________________
Here's the deal. Tillable acres may not have increased a great deal Nation wide but production has moved to different areas. In 1900 farming was going on in every state and pretty wide spread. Urban sprawl and a growing population pushed agriculture to new areas, where housing and cities took farm land. New ground was plowed and drained. So, tillable acres have increased in states like Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, Etc. but decreases in more populated areas. Also, small 40 acre farms were very popular back in the 30's, 40's and 50's. International(Farmall), Ford(Ford and Ferguson(system)_, Massey Harris(became Massey Ferguson), Minneapolis Moline, Allis Chalmers, John Deer, Etc. Sold tons, and tons of A, B, C, H, M, Super M's, Etc(Farmall)..A, B, G, D, Etc(John Deer). 8N, 9N, Jubilee, Etc(Ford), Etc, Etc, Etc.. Everybody was farming a small patch of ground, had a cow or two, chickens, sheep, Etc. All small tractors by today's standards. They were unable to put the large tracts of land today under full tillage.
So, South Dakota for example has far more ground being tilled today then back in 1900.
That's why we can see such a change. Take Bloomington Minnesota. Many would never understand that that was pretty much all farm land back in the 30's and 40's but today it's solid houses and they spread south all the way to Faribault Mn...nearly 70 miles south now. Also, just about nobody plowed under every inch of their land. Most were dotted with pot holes, creeks, and patches of woods. As the years went on. Much of that was drained and bull dozed down.
Places like South Dakota are changing forever. Some may be trying to steer us away from what's really going on but it just isn't going to work. Saying there isn't change going on in the heartland plain states and that the same amount of acres are under till is just not factual. South Dakota has WAY! more land under till today then in 1900.
Onpoint
UGUIDE
Active member
O&N, I agree that assuming tillable acres are more or less the same and birds are fewer the farming practices sure are different. The new system will have to be somehow between bleeding edge and organic.
It will take thinking along a conservationists lines. Will all farmers be willing to think along those lines? I suspect not.
For those that will they will need to understand the basics that pheasants need insect and spraying crops with insecticides, for one, is not going to be ideal. Seed treated fungicides and insecticides might be a better option for example.
onpoint
Active member
Those seeds are suspect blame for the die off of our bee's. Many farmers are buying new bee's each year and having them shipped up each summer. Don't sound like a sound plan to me.