CIL | Tom88 - 1/3/2017 17:45
I start thinking about this some more after reading some of the gmo threads. I would still like to use chemicals to control the weeds but it would add another level to the price if we didn't.
I figure you could cut the national yield in half. Fertilizer would also get real cheap.
Would things really be that bad for the farmer? Would we turn a profit? If I cut my yield in half and multiply by $7 corn I would be happy.
I get what you are saying, but you are ignoring the way a capitalist market works. Cutting the yield in half = an advantage that fertilizer gets cheap. So more farmers will add fertilizer...thus taking away from the supply of fertilizer = higher cost of fert.
For me, there are some years like 2014 where 30lbs of nitrogen = 210 bu corn...but the stuff we sidedressed with 150 lbs....made 260. But there are other years where the natural release of nitrogen was less...2015... 30lbs = 140 bu...but 150 lbs = 220. So my answer is, nitrogen is my insurance when mother nature doesn't want to cooperate. I'd rather raise a giant crop with a low price than a horrible crop with a high price. It's easier for me to sell a large crop than a poor one. Especially when I'm better at keeping my costs under control than I am controlling mother nature! |
Stop using nitrogen. What would corn price be?
