Currently, we are used to a centralized authority which tends to hold most of the decision-making power. It leads to situations where authorities (at the top) are responsible for identifying targets and directions. Afterward, in many cases the decisions made at the “top” flows down through the levels and the grassroots businesses or people are supposed to neatly attain these arbitrary goals and outcomes.

Nonsensical targets have been established from the federal government that agriculture needs to reduce fertilizer application because of the impact it has on the environment. Any studies, and even more to the point, farmers would explain that there is not a straight correlation between applied fertilizer amounts to crop yield. As the graph from Research gate, shows there are limits. Not only do unnecessary application of fertilizer plateaus yield, but even reduces yields in excessive use. Any excess lost would not only contribute a decreased profit margin, they would decrease the productivity of the land. So, a question arises. At the price of fertilizer, why would any good business person want to spend more money to get less of a return? The answer is simple, they wouldn’t and they don’t. Farmers and the Agricultural sector have been implementing integrated management practices for years, whether it be for fertilizer use or weed/pest control. Such management plans include the 4R Nutrient Stewardship (Right Source, Right Rate, Right Time, Right Place ®). The individual stewardship plans aren’t universal, each is tailormade for each region, climate, soil type, crop, and producer. Every decision is based on clear indicators justifying whether an application will be done or not.

You don’t become a Steward of the Land without knowing, loving, and caring for it. Prior to central authority making a decision, shouldn’t they ask those who would are affected and tend to know best? Rest assured, we have and will continue advocating to authorities to reach out and talk to stakeholders.