Some people just like to talk, or maybe just to hear themselves speak. And… it isn't just restricted to farmers, retired farmers, the "senate" table at the local Co-op, or even the church wise men and women. I have even seen scientists and researchers get into the act. The part that bugs me is when they don't have all the facts and still insist on giving their opinion to anyone that will listen.
The true and genuine person that has experienced the situation is really the only one qualified to make the statement, and even they would be the first ones to admit they still don't know everything, and never have any intention of actually publishing. Mostly, we are talking about the "serious" people who truly get involved and buy into a regime. That, naturally, involves a lot of farmers and agriculture service people.
I recently read an article by a researcher who decided to publish an expose on some work done, and after only one year, came to a conclusion that seems not to agree with a significant segment of the farming population. Most researchers will usually wait a period of about 3-5 years, to assure their findings are statistically significant, before they publish. I can only say to that researcher, "good luck in your studies" and hope crow is not too difficult to eat in the future, should the end result of those studies prove something different.
Farmers will buy into an area on interest, only if they can afford it or perceive a chance of surviving a few more years in tough times, or if circumstances force the issue. Think about the issue of direct seeding that SSCA has been championing for the past number of years, and you will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that the concept works, and works very well for some of the people. I say some, because there have been wrecks and failures, but there have also been magnificent successes.
Many of the progressive farmers still in operation today will tell you they are here only because they went with the growing trend of increasing their efficiency on the farm, or have taken the time to study crop rotations and put one into practice that works for them. They always have something to sell, and are confident they are building, or re-building their soil to a level they could not hope to achieve under their old system of land management. Yes, there are "good" farmers who don't direct seed, and there always will be, but they have learned something from the direct seeders, whether they like to admit it or not.
The "secret", if you haven't guessed it by now, is "management". Any successful operator will tell you they need to make use of every available tool at their disposal, to survive in the marketplace as it exists today. This includes more efficient methods of seeding, access to reliable research data that has practical application, practical G.M.O.s, a healthy marketplace, a secure financial plan, a bunch of empathetic neighbors who are not too proud to share their own information, and time.
I have been noted to evoke a head scratching look from a farmer who calls me out to attempt to diagnose an impending disaster. When I go to the outside or the starting point in the field and begin to look at the ground, they ask,"what the h--- are you doing"? I inform them that I am looking for knee prints in the ground. Knee prints, you see, are often the key element missing in the puzzle to determine "what went wrong". Any good operator, direct seeder or not, should get off the tractor, and get down on his knees, not necessarily to pray, but to find out just where he(or she) is putting the seed and adjusting the seed bed result if needed. Good seed-to-soil contact on a firm seed bed is mandatory. Operation speed is often the critical factor in deciding whether a success or a failure will occur. 4.5-5.5 mph is still the best operating speed to seed, and I take a lot of convincing to make me waiver from that point.
Weed control is the next big issue. We all know that farmers never shave rates (and get away with it). They always apply them under ideal conditions, unless it has been windy for 26 of the last 30 days. Most farmers are not afraid of G.M.O.s, and providing they have followed the proper education and information that the company has provided, they achieve good results. The farmers don't treat these products as "magic potions", but instead, value them as a tool made available to them only after having undergone years of research and extensive registration procedures to help them survive and be more successful. (and be around to purchase more products next season) Politics will always exist between nations around the world, and farmers are often the pawns in the game, whether it be technology or markets and the subsequent market protection influences.
If you are wondering about where all this is going, I am going to draw your attention to the many farmers in Saskatchewan who have switched to direct seeding. When you consider that in 1994, only about 3 or 4 percent of farmers operated a low disturbance type of seeding, with maybe another 20% operating under a high disturbance system, you will immediately notice a difference in the current figures. By today's measure, 38% of farmers operate a low disturbance type of seeding, along with another 30-32% operating a relatively high disturbance method. Now, multiply those figures with the 36 million acres we seed annually in Saskatchewan, and you will grasp what a monumental shift there has been in the commitment by farmers to a system that helps them survive economically in today's world marketplace, as viewed from the province. No, we do not have a commanding control position in that marketplace, but we sure have captured people's attention.
The partnering effect of the machinery manufacturers in this part of the world hasn't hurt either. Manufacturers, dealers and farmers have all benefited from this major shift in seeding technology.
And, believe it or not, I don't think we are anywhere near being done yet.
From the number of farmers attempting to retrofit a drill or machine to take advantage of the technology inherent with direct seeding, it seems there is still a lot of interest in the system. The "new" issue of carbon sequestration, or the building of organic matter in soils will continue to hold the interest of many of the world's farmers and land owners, who are interested in seriously doing something right in managing their soils. They too, will retain the interest if there is a reward for early adoption of a system that seeks to reduce the amount of carbon "pollution" in the world through a practical application of a rather simple farming practice that enables the process. It returns an element of control back to the farm and the farmers management system, and that gives a lot of satisfaction to the farmer. Remember that we haven't really been hungry in this part of the world yet, and food is relatively cheap in comparison to a lot of other things in our shopping basket, unlike other parts of the world. Next time you think you hear a farmer whining about the prices, remember how much he has invested in your future on your behalf, before you berate him.
There really are not that many farmers in the world today and they're on the decrease. I think it is inour best interests to try and preserve some of the ones we have left, before it is too late. The farmer should not be the only one who has put his money where his mouth is.
Think about that.