I was finally able to get hold of my father- talked with my father-in-law
about half an hour about farming and was
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "K. Feete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Most farmland now is being bought by developers, not farmers, so any >real
>estate statistics are suspicous.
Most? In the middle of Iowa, 30 miles away from cities? I talked with my
father in law about this, and while development does have an impact on farm
prices, it varies with the distance to cities. In Wisconsin, the farm land
around Madison is affected about 25 miles out. His farm is 70 miles from
Madison.
Kat, have you ever been out in the real Midwest farm country, away from the
cities? There are miles and miles with only an occasional town dotting the
landscape. My father-in-law stated that there is a market for farms in his
area, and not for development.
>Dan; most of the farmland bought for farmland (which is almost nil) around
>here has to have a few thousand dollars dropped >on it before it's
>productive again, and most of the farmers around >here are going out of
>business because their land is no longer >productive.
Perhaps your area is not naturally good farmland? It could very well be
that folks in your area have a hard time competing with mid-west farmers.
It would make sense, because the costs only have to be about 10%-20% higher
to make the difference between going broke and making a decent living.
>
>I'm not questioning your uncle's record. There *are* a few good >farmers
>around who have taken care of their land and reaped the >rewards. But....
I asked him. He stated that it was only the occasional fool who destroyed
his own land. He asked "why should somebody destroy their own livlyhood?"
When I discussed land damage with him, he pointed out that new equipment has
significantly decreased the amount of erosion. Before, the soil had to be
tilled in order to plant. Now, with no-till planters, farmers are able to
plant both corn and soybeans without tilling the soil. This has drastically
reduced soil erosion.
>I don't doubt that the yields have gone up; they've done the same >for
>dairy. But the *cost* has also gone up. In dairy farming, we >now have
>cattle who produce much, much more milk, but they also eat >more, require
>more medical care, and wear out faster. The yield has >gone up, but the
>profit margin remains the same... if not smaller. >I'm not an expert on
>crop farming, but I'm betting it's the same >deal there.
Actually, less fertelizer is being used now than was used in the early �80s.
I think the main culprate is the lowering price for farm goods. The
inflation adjusted price for corn has been:
61-65 $3.72
66-70 $3.39
71-75 $4.78
76-80 $3.71
81-85 $2.70
86-90 $1.60
91-95 $1.43
96-98 $1.32
(with 1983 as the index year for inflation).
We see that, even with inflation adjusted costs per acre going down and
yields going up as given in my previous post, the income per acre could
still fall.
>Uh, Dan... I may not be a crop expert, but even I can see the problem here.
>The reason corn is so hard on the land is that it's a high-nitrogen crop;
>the reason it requires beans (most commonly) to be raised or rotated in is
>because beans are nitrogen fixers. There's no way to decrease the nitrogen
>requirements of corn without decreasing the productivity that I know of,
>and there's absolutely *no way* that Monsanto could have developed a GE
>breed of corn that was a nitrogen fixer without me knowing about it. That's
>the agricultural version of cold fusion.
I actually misunderstood/misremembered what my father-in-law told me, so let
me explain what he told me in detail. Nitrogen still does have to be added
to the soil when corn is grown. It is not nitrogen fixing, as are soybeans.
However, there had been many advantages to growing just corn, over rotating
corn and �beans. For a number of years now, corn could be planted without
tilling the ground. And, corn harvesting usually had left the stalks in the
ground, harvesting just the ears. As a result, erosion is minimal. With
�beans, the ground had to be tilled, increasing the amount of erosion.
This meant that the best use of the land was planting corn year after year,
applying nitrogen fertilizer as need be. (As an aside, my father-in-law
told me that after the soil breaks down the nitrogen, the only difference
resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers was a slight increase in the
acidity of the soil. This is addressed by putting lime (calcium cabonate)
on the soil.
Very recently, no-till planting of �beans has been developed. The corn
stalks can be in the ground as the �beans are planted. As a result, the
decrease in diseases and insect populations resulting from rotating crops
(the same diseases do not affect corn and �beans and the I think that the
insects do not fully overlap), and the decrease in the amount of fertilizer
needed outweighs any advantage in just growing corn year after year.
>
>I remember it from all that time we spent on the Great Depression,
>personally. Your point is valid, but with modern farms a little outdated.
>Most farmers are able to offset the effects of land depletion by the
>application of chemical fertilizers.
But, the land isn�t depleted in any way that cannot be addressed by just
adding nitrogen in the next year. I asked my father-in-law if he could farm
with the amount of erosion he had for centuries while keeping the land up
and he said he could. The erosion is decreasing substantially, and is
countered by the addition of nutrients to the soil.
While he is probably a more efficient farmer than most, he is not singular.
These techniques are typical of what is being done. I think the problem
with farm income is that prices fall with increased supply.
>This doesn't help the land one bit,
I�m missing something important. If the nitrogen taken out of the soil is
replaced the next year, why is there any long term damage? If one has done
this for years, and has seen yields increase while fertilizer use has been
constant or has gone down slightly, how can one possibly say the land is
being damaged? Why don�t we see the effect of the damage on crop yields?
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
