Trudeau’s nitrogen policy will decimate Canadian farming

[petros]

Its been known for years in the ag industry that synthetic N's days were numbered. The day came just like it came for phospates.

This isnt new shit.

The Government’s New Climate Plan​

Agriculture is the cornerstone of Canada’s food and nutrition security. Reductions in emissions cannot come at the cost of reduced output of food. Reconciling the dual objectives of increased food production and reduced emissions requires increasing the efficiency of agricultural practices so farmers can get more out of all the inputs and resources they use – thereby minimizing greenhouse gas emissions while maximizing soil carbon sequestration potential of agriculture soils.
In December 2020, the Government of Canada released A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy – a plan which pledges to reduce emissions from fertilizer by 30% below 2020 levels.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I think the real point was the 'research'. He's going to give money to friends and donors to 'write a report' on the subject. They will spend millions 'researching' it (meaning reading a few articles here and there and some research others have done) and they'll get paid a few million each to do it, and turn out a report in 2 years saying "It's really important to do something" without saying what the 'something' is. They'll also throw some money at companies looking at making products that might help - all of which will be in ontario or quebec.

 

[The_Foxer]

Its been known for years in the ag industry that synthetic N's days were numbered. The day came just like it came for phospates.

This isnt new shit.

I read that plan and as far as i can see there's nothing in it that flushes out the specifics any more than the current announcement.

Which brings us full circle again - when trudeau says he wants to cut fertilizer emissions by 30 percent what specifically is he thinking of and how does he see getting there. If you have any document that lays out what he's specifically intending for that cut then fine, let us know but right now i can't see that there's ANY plan OR targets beyond the general 30 percent he's mentioned and i have no idea where he got that. Frankly i can't even see how he's calculating what the '2020 levels' means or how he's calculating what the emissions are. I'm seriously quesitoning if he's got the slightest clue.

Edit to add: I can't even figure out re-reading some of that plan if they're talking about an overall reduction OR a reduction per pound of food grown so to speak. In other words - is he talking about a 30 percent reduction in TOTAL for the whole country, or a 30 percent reduction in how much the average farmer uses to grow a pound of crops? If we grow more crops than we did in 2020, we might still be higher overall than 2020 but still lower on average for the amount of food grown.

It just seems like nobody knows what the hell he's actually talking about, least of all him.

 

[petros]

Its far from full circle buddy. Until you accept that synthetics are under the gun youll be flailing and raging over something you dont understand or wont accept.

 

[The_Foxer]

Its far from full circle buddy. Until you accept that synthetics are under the gun youll be flailing and raging over something you dont understand or wont accept.

it has zero to do with that. That's not the discussion we're having, that's what your brain has stuck on like a frozen windows screen. Can you produce a single document showing what Trudeau specifically intends with this 30 percent announcement? If not then you're being an idiot. That's what the discussion is about.

 

[petros]

As I said, do your research. Synthetic N has been demonized for decades for a variety of reasons.

The 1960s Green Revolution using intense inputs came and is now on its way out.

 

[petros]

As I said, do your research. Synthetic N has been demonized for decades for a variety of reasons.

The 1960s Green Revolution using intense inputs came and is now on its way out.

Try this. Explain why synthetics arent targeted why and its a flat cut to N use.

 

[Serryah]

Just try’n to brainstorm Trudeau’s 30% reduction in an achievable way and damn the torpedos.

Well from the video I posted, most farmers are already doing what they can to reduce and actually try to modernize their agriculture so it's more 'earth friendly', so to speak.

So it just seems like this is more a case of needing to make a big deal in the news/public about something farmers are already doing, but also inconvenience them at the same time.

 

[petros]

Try? Try to modernize?

 

[The_Foxer]

Try this. Explain why synthetics arent targeted why and its a flat cut to N use.

Dude you are so worked up you are literally quoting yourself.

This is so simple a 5 year old can get it - Trudeau has said he wants a 30 percent reduction in fertilizer emissions - show me the document that explains what HE MEANS by that. Not what you mean or what you think he means or what someone else some time in the past may or may not have meant .... what does HE intend specifically. It's a pretty simple concept. If he hasn't published one then as near as we can tell he has no plan and no target for this. Nothing else matters.

 

[The_Foxer]

Well from the video I posted, most farmers are already doing what they can to reduce and actually try to modernize their agriculture so it's more 'earth friendly', so to speak.

So it just seems like this is more a case of needing to make a big deal in the news/public about something farmers are already doing, but also inconvenience them at the same time.

Honestly that's how it seems to me.

 

[petros]

Dude you are so worked up you are literally quoting yourself.

This is so simple a 5 year old can get it - Trudeau has said he wants a 30 percent reduction in fertilizer emissions - show me the document that explains what HE MEANS by that.

I know EXACTLY what he means, why he means it and the chemistry introduced behind all this fucking shit that lead to without saying a fucking word about targeting to conclude its targeted.

Do you?

 

[The_Foxer]

I know EXACTLY what he means, why he means it and the chemistry introduced behind all this fucking shit that lead to without saying a fucking word about targeting to conclude its targeted.

Do you?

I rather doubt you do. You wouldn't have been blathering like a rabid poodle if you actually did. But - prove me wrong and go ahead and produce that document we talked about. I assume this isn't all in your head. Or at least hope.

 

[petros]

I'll keep it simple for you. There are several layers involved in why this is all going down and why its its just a start. Why synthetics? Its more than just N20 and CO2 emissions, far more. Its the first whack of the nail in the coffin of current GMOs which rely on synthetics and a name brand herbicide to introduce new GMOs that need very little fertilizers or herbicide if any at all. Producers will offset losses to weeds through ethanol and feed markets.

I guarantee another cut announcement hits in 2028 or 29. It'll be another 60% by 2035 and final 40% by 2040 after that.

 

[The_Foxer]

I'll keep it simple for you.

I'll keep it even more simple for you. Trudeau made a statement and an announcement. Regardless of anything else you may have heard in the past, or anything you think he might be or should be or shouldn't be thinking of, HE has a reason for making that statement and some idea of what if not anything he wants to have happen. So the ONLY thing that is relevant to HIS statement is documentation of what that might be. If none exists, then we don't know what HE is thinking or what HIS end goals are. If they even have anything to do with nitrogen or fertilizer or the like, which i'm starting to doubt.

So your little rants about what YOU think HE is thinking or what HE means specifically by this announcement or what HIS goals are (stated or otherwise) are not in the slightest bit relevant. So unless you have a specific document outlining what HE means then you know NOTHING that is of any particular relevance to what i said in the beginning about not knowing what HE is looking for here specifically or if even HE knows what he's thinking of.

And really that's the end of the conversation. Obviously no such document exists or you'd have provided it by now and you can't. So it remains unanswered at this time.

 

[petros]

He didnt think about this at all. Thousands of others did the thinking. All he did was go duuuuuuh on TV. These cuts will be global. Kick back and watch.

Like I said, Im kinda for these cuts. If my input costs go down 30% on a GMO crop so be it. It may or may not reduce yields anyway.

They cracked the protein in plants that restrict the uptake of nitrogen in a salt form. That means plants wont burn from the salts. Its big. Its why as a producer Im not resisting.

Humans produced abundant crops just fine for thousand of years with minimal additional supplements ketting nature take its course with human help with breeding.

With the salt/nitrogen gene unlocked crops will now grow in some soils they could never grow in before. The Green Revolution killed the soil turning into a lifeless growing medium relying on ferts and chems.

Producers have made a shift into being soil farmers with abundant micro fauna, flora and fungi capable of producing huge crops without expensive complex synthetics.
.
Thats fucking huge! Rice in brackish water alone is another 5 billion fed alone.

 

[The_Foxer]

He didnt think about this at all.

While i'm certainly not prepared to rule that out, again you're just making that up i suspect and don't have any reason to believe it other than conjecture.

I'm sorry but my original statement holds - we have no way of knowing what specifically they had in mind with regards to the 30 percent announced recently or if they had any specific targets at all (or even how they're calculating that percent). You can guess, you can opine, you can speculate but with no documentation or announcement that specifies that we can't even be sure what he's looking for. And while i'm sure that he doesn't understand the issue well, at some point he signed off on it and if it's a real target there must be some criteria they are thinking of.

 

[petros]

I follow agronomy news very closely. I have to or I lose my shirt. This topic of nitrogen reductions has been in discussion for more than a decade.

Its no secret which applications are being targeted when name brands are tossed around. Its a global initiative.

Would you like to know more?

 

[The_Foxer]

I follow agronomy news very closely. I have to or I lose my shirt. This topic of nitrogen reductions has been in discussion for more than a decade.

Its no secret which applications are being targeted when name brands are tossed around. Its a global initiative.

Would you like to know more?

You're welcome to share if you like and i'm sure it's interesting but at the moment i'm more concerned about what justin is thinking and his cabinet is planning, and that may or may not have anything to do with any science, logic, reason or anything that's been discussed in the past. It may not even be something they intend to pursue beyond making an announcement for appearance or it may be tied to something that has zero to do with the environment at all and is part of a different political agenda.

But sure it would be interesting to know what the rest of the world has been talking about even if it turns out justin has something else up his sleeve.

 

[petros]

As stated it layered and like anything else, there is always a Librigarch side swindle with Trudeau's sticky fingers in the cookie jar.

One is getting Canadian food crops on the carbon credit market with fertilizer producers using them as offsets to market "neutral" fertilizer globally. Currently fertilizer giants like Yara, Mosaic, Potash Corp, K+S are paying carbon tax and challenging it in courts. Govt says were going to make you eventually phase this shit out BUT youll get 50% of the carbon credits generated by farmers and we market your products globally as neutral and sustainable.