@wheatgrowers The data supports a reduction. It is a known fact that Nitrogen and carbon cycle emits GHG and a reduction in fertilizer if you work on soil health will not lead to yield loss. Where is your data to support the alternative you are propagating?
@WBrettWilson So, what is your plan @WBrettWilson? We can keep deepening on fossil fuels with are finite. We have abundant resources and innovations in Canada that can make us world leaders in the Green energy sector.
@LWR_Inc Processing manure is a broad term. Is it via a aerobic or anaerobic process? Former reduces emissions only if it’s in-vessel and the later doesn’t. Conversion into fertilizer is NOT a green/sustainable venture cos decomposition is required to release its content via carbon cycle
@FoodProfessor I hope @seantoconnor is able to determine what Agtech is really about as if it can’t be part of the solution or it’s just giving data, it meaningless. NDVI, GCI & MSAVI data means nothing if a grower can’t use them to reduce the effect of stress for more bushels.
@FoodProfessor It depends on the Agtech invested in. Weather stations and providing imagery services for example are not Agtech. The former provides data based on the geolocation it’s installed and data from both mean nothing if they can’t be transformed into actionable data for the Ag.
@davegin1@JohnBarlowMP@AndrewScheer@WarrenSteinley I respect your opinion, but it’s not about which is more “dominant ”, it’s about which is more damaging given how it interacts with nature and the environment. Again, refer to my previous quote.
@fargo34560463 @GreyWay99@ctvregina@JustinTrudeau Everyone would do what they want. Chasing bushels via over application is not the answer especially when it produces NOx. Reduced fertilization by 30% can be complimented by microbes that are inherent in their abilities to fix, solubilize, oxidize &mobilize macro & micro minerals
@davegin1@JohnBarlowMP@AndrewScheer@WarrenSteinley I recommend you do your research on how NOx interacts with the troposphere(remains inert for 120yrs) and stratosphere which in turn destroys the stratospheric zone. I don’t know where you got your 8% number from.
@davegin1@JohnBarlowMP@AndrewScheer@WarrenSteinley So am assuming your point is if it’s not “significant” to drastically affect one variable, then we should keep polluting with NOx till such a time when we have to carry out a reactive approach to reduce ambient temperature?
@LINDACO85580932 @JohnBarlowMP@AndrewScheer@WarrenSteinley It’s irrelevant to the point. He has to consult with growers on a framework as part of stakeholders consultations but Nitrogen & Carbon cycles have well defined metrics to calculate emissions and as thus, wouldn’t depend on anyone visiting a farm.
@CherilynNagel@JustinTrudeau@mclaudebibeau ….nature.This is their inherent ability. The salt index of fert & the fact that most of them are tied-up in the soil due to imbalance all contribute losses & to why this mandate should trigger a broader conversation on improving the status of your most priced asset, your land
@CherilynNagel@JustinTrudeau@mclaudebibeau Then the root cause of your yield drop would be sequel to your soils health not being balance across all three phases not sequel to the fertilizer drop. The soil is part of nature, nature takes care of itself. There are all sorts of microbes that can fix/solubilize minerals in…