Advances in Agriculture

I think so. In the grand scheme of things CRP acres are minimal.

In my option, it had nothing to do with CRP.  But rather the speed of science over the past 20+ years.  If you look beyond crop science, everything has advanced at a very rapid pace.  In addition, the weather cycle has had a big effect on current yields.  The moisture we see today is beyond anything I have see in my life time.  Rain, more than genetics, is the reason you now see corn everywhere.  Yes, new varities have helped, but several other factors.

It truly is a global market and influence any more. With a world population expected to double in the next fifty years, demands on food production and agriculture will be significant. I do beleive these advances in production would have happened any way. http://www.deere.com/en_US/ag/online_brochures/furrow/2011/furrow_february2011.html

Here is an issue of the furrow magazine that has an interesting article titled feedin 9 billion on page five. Go to ful screen and you should be able to read it.

There is one quote from the article. "over the next 50 years the worlds farmers must produce more food than they have produced in the past 10,000 years combined."

If one considers it , a challange indeed. Any way it is a good read on this topic with a couple of differing opinions on issues.

it's all about companies and competition.  If you want to grow your company you better come out with new advancements.

Goosefishmen Said:
In my option, it had nothing to do with CRP.  But rather the speed of science over the past 20+ years.  If you look beyond crop science, everything has advanced at a very rapid pace.  In addition, the weather cycle has had a big effect on current yields.  The moisture we see today is beyond anything I have see in my life time.  Rain, more than genetics, is the reason you now see corn everywhere.  Yes, new varities have helped, but several other factors.

Very astute observation.  As ND rides this cycle downward into a drier portion of our natural cycle, it will be interesting to see where corn survives. 

Allen Said:

Goosefishmen Said:
In my option, it had nothing to do with CRP.  But rather the speed of science over the past 20+ years.  If you look beyond crop science, everything has advanced at a very rapid pace.  In addition, the weather cycle has had a big effect on current yields.  The moisture we see today is beyond anything I have see in my life time.  Rain, more than genetics, is the reason you now see corn everywhere.  Yes, new varities have helped, but several other factors.

Very astute observation.  As ND rides this cycle downward into a drier portion of our natural cycle, it will be interesting to see where corn survives. 

Oh Allen,  if there is  a drier year it will be a "disaster".

when you speak of advances in ag what advances are you talking about? If you mean all the chemical use that is the only differance i see. Till the sh--it out of the land in the fall so it blows all winter and in the spring the ditches get filled with top soil from runoff. then you plant a crop and spray it all summer then kill it with roundup in the fall.
makes no sence to me .

riverview Said:
when you speak of advances in ag what advances are you talking about?

The dramatically increased yeild potential.

riverview, that is the most retarded thing i have heard all morning

riverview Said:
when you speak of advances in ag what advances are you talking about? If you mean all the chemical use that is the only differance i see. Till the sh--it out of the land in the fall so it blows all winter and in the spring the ditches get filled with top soil from runoff. then you plant a crop and spray it all summer then kill it with roundup in the fall.
makes no sence to me .

In no way am I a farmer, or even close to any anymore......

Seems to me no-till farming is becoming more popular around the midwest.  I guided 3 different couples this last summer.  All had made the switch to no-till farming, and all were retired/semi-retired (if there is truly such a thing in the farming world).  So at their age newer advancements have made them make drastic changes in their operation which have led to higher yields and decreased operational expenses, thus more income.

Than again, what do I know.  It was only 3 farm families with significant acreage; by no means was it a scientific poll.

Horsager Said:
If CRP hadn't come about in the 80's and all that enrolled land would've stayed in production would we still have seen the outstanding advancements in yields that have been made?  I understand that in the beginning much of the land put into CRP was marginal and CRP was a form of erosion control but as the program progressed a fair amount of very good land was also enrolled.  By reducing the amount of tilled acres was innovation spurred or would it have happened anyway?

This is one reason CRP is failing.  It was never, ever, ever, ever, ever designed to be a wildlife program.  It was to take out erosion prone acres, acres that were non producing and also played a roll in taking land out of production period to help with markets.

It soon became a program to gain a few bucks on your land instead of renting it out.  When that happened, land that should have never been put in was going in.  Then we as the public and hunting public especially got spoiled with an indirect benefit.  The ag industry is and always will be an important world stabilizer and necessity.  It also is a way to make money and a living.  So out the acres went.  Now we hold our heads complaining it is the bad farmer doing it.  When really, we sat idle for decades knowing the program would eventually go backwards.  In the meantime, we should have been developing a wildlife program that had indirect benefits such as erosion, etc.  But more importantly, one that actually welcomed acres that may have been suitable for farming, etc. 

Anyway, my morning rant.

But to answer your questions, I don't know if CRP has that much of an impact.  It is the world market we now live in.  We feed mouths all around the globe.  Coupled with the epa restrictions, market prices, input costs, etc we simply had to advance the technology.  Just the same we are now able to drill in the Bakken.

Allen Said:

Goosefishmen Said:
In my option, it had nothing to do with CRP.  But rather the speed of science over the past 20+ years.  If you look beyond crop science, everything has advanced at a very rapid pace.  In addition, the weather cycle has had a big effect on current yields.  The moisture we see today is beyond anything I have see in my life time.  Rain, more than genetics, is the reason you now see corn everywhere.  Yes, new varieties have helped, but several other factors.

Very astute observation.  As ND rides this cycle downward into a drier portion of our natural cycle, it will be interesting to see where corn survives. 

Hell, I am amazed corn survives where it does out west.  Never before were their corn fields.  Although, some of that has to do with the fact of ethanol and cattle.

I'm waiting for a soybean that doesn't need a bunch of September moisture.

There are some who have the opinion that the world population has already exceeded the ability to feed it.  That might actually be true RIGHT NOW.

The next step comes from technology.  Transgenic research will unlock the key to the production needed to feed an even larger population.

Here's where it gets sticky for people farming right now.  The people that develop and own that technology will get paid for it.  The result is it will devalue the people who do the work of planting, growing, and harvesting that crop.  Forget about getting paid for doing those things at much more than say 150% of minimum wage. 

Sound bad for farmers?  Not really.  Whoever owns the land for growing crops will get paid well (already happening).  Commodity price swings will be wide.  Even more of your potential profit will be tied up in those decisions.  Volatility produces opportunity and if you miss opportunities you will suffer (already happening).

Finally, your competition is your neighbors (not just across the road either).  It doesn't matter if you are making money.  That's no longer the main factor.  You MUST be MATCHING your neighbors in profitability because you must be able to compete for resources with those around you.  Somebody will always be willing to pay more for land, pay more for the latest technology, pay more for labor to run their ever increasing operation, and develop economies of size that are hard to match.  If you don't have the capital to keep up, you will not survive.  The treadmill keeps moving faster.

Anytime technology starts to be the biggest driving factor, it is the people driving the technology who get rewarded (either funding it or actually developing it).  Our research Universities are bringing in unprecedented levels of research dollars from the private sector.  The result is that the private sector owns that technology.  Know one way that matters?  Fact: the most efficient University in North Dakota is NDSU.  It is NOT EVEN CLOSE.  This is in terms of State dollars spent per student.  The State of North Dakota has gotten a great deal from this.  I'm pretty sure the Legislature has no idea what this means though because they have refused to move anywhere near equity funding.

Downside?  Yeah, much less (not all) of the new technology produced is at low cost to our primary industry.  We don't get to own it.  The research dollars that produced it own the rights.  Think it's no big deal?  Take a look at your input costs the last 10 years and see how much more you are paying in technology driven fees.  The level of dollars invested in the crop in the Spring is at levels that nobody would have believed could happen.  Big risk and we're rapidly moving to a place where simply producing a high crop yield will not even begin to guaranty a decent profit.

Farnorth,

Yup on many regards.

It is Walmart-nomics.  Sell a lot at a small profit.  Only way you can do that is invest in the technology and farm a lot.  Or be damn lucky to own a lot of quality land and only need to support a family of 2 to 4.

Farmorth is very correct in his post.

And the food for fuel debate will intensify right alongside the price of oil and groceries.

There was mention of farm subsidies in another thread. It would be interesting if people took a look at what percentage of their disposable income they spent for food 10 years ago, what they are spending today, to compare it to what will be spent 10 years from now. As this govt moves away from a food security policy, it may become more evident what a bargin people were getting.
.
Even just track the increase in this years time frame. It is being suggested food costs will rise 30% this year alone. Multiglobal corporations are slowly gaining more control over agriculture by controling the technologies farnorth talks about as well as the processing. . In the long run, this is likely not in the consumers best interest.