|
Latimer Iowa | Soil biology is much more complicated than what that “test” makes it seem. If a farmer just try’s “to save on fertilizer “ by cutting fertilizer and then say no-tilling and a cover crop for one year they are going to fail. It is much more difficult than that and an uphill battle against the parties that are actually making money from how agriculture happens today. Hint: it’s not us farmers.
I will not claim a yield increase with increased soil biological action but will say we have had an increased profit per acre. Profit per acre meaning more than just dollars as well. The environmental and socioeconomic benefits to our communities should have value placed on them. Our soil is what feeds us. Nutrient density, health, and quality of the food we supposedly produce should play a part. Societies fail when they treat their soil like dirt. Do you go outside and stand in your field as the fungicide plane flys overhead, stand open mouthed in awe, and wonder why our health is failing? Chemicals, of all types including many medicines, are treating the symptoms, but are we just causing the symptoms with crappy food intake and lack of activity? Improving soil health is starting down the path to fix the root issues.
If you are making changes solely to save money in a short term scenario you will not be successful. It takes a system change throughout from seed, machinery, fertilizers, rotations, crops grown, livestock, herbicides, insecticide, fungicides to go from underwear b to underwear a. If you are not committed to it you will just end up with soiled briefs and say it doesn’t work here while nursing diaper rash that makes you cranky and loud. Building soil health is not the easy button, a failure of commitment to ecosystem change will lead back to failure change.
Will get off the soapbox but saying we want to do this to cut fertilizer to save money need to have the blinders removed.
Edited by Green Acres Guy 12/7/2025 06:37
| |
|
Your yield and your underwear.
