Re: Kevorkian Economics- long -- Stuck using chemicals

["JS M" <jbiggs50@hotmail.com>]

I'm not sure this answers the question.  D.Nelson asks if reducing the cost 
of inputs by not applying the chemicals doesn't increase the profit margin.  
Is that right?  I'd heard (very unscientific source) that the local soils 
have been degraded by using salt-producing chemicals and production simply 
won't rebound by going organic.  Anyone know something else?  Oh, and what's 
this about "especially" property taxes?  I understood that with NRCS 
conservancy programs, farmers paid very little in property taxes (maybe in 
comparison to homeowners, eh?)?
jm



>Hi David,
>
>With the current price of grain, you cannot meet your expenses
>(seed, equipment, fuel, wages, and especially property taxes) on
>52 bushels per acre.
>
>-Jory
>
> > Why are we stuck.  Why not just make an economic decision and not apply 
>the
> > chemicals.  Would you not get the pre chemical era yields of 52 
>bushels/acre ?
> > Has something changed in the soil?  Are the crop failure risks bigger ?
> >
> > David Nelson
>
>
>Jory Shelton
>PC Network Specialist
>College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Range Sciences
>University of Idaho
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com