World Record corn harvest -- ORGANIC~!

No, all yields are adjusted to a uniform standard test weight and moisture.

The rules and past winners are all here on thier site:

http://www.ncga.com/for-farmers/nati...-yield-contest

I would expect he harvested around 25% as well, that would be a sweet spot for yield numbers. Earlier than that the corn might not test well, later than that might fall over.... New corn varieties in warmer climates have begun to remain quite green yet, even tho the corn ear is dry. It is a feature the plant breeders have been looking for, working on the past 25 years. It is called 'quick dry down' in their seed catalogs.

Paul

This is a different breed. King Corn. Nothing was weighed, just a yield monitor on a combine. No acreage measure. All done to move the corn record to a different area than has been the king for years. All for sensationalism. I doubt it will ever stand up to the real test.

Organic, yea right, about as organic as a golf course. It is not sustainable, they suck every ounce of good from the ground. It is all done for the name, these farmers can ruin their little test plots all for the King Corn notoriety. They are not REAL farmers....James

http://www.prweb.com/releases/DuPont...eb11442068.htm

What/who is a real farmer?

geo

Here in central WI 20-30+% is not uncommon and the LP truck isn't seen at all. Dairy producers put it up as high moisture shell corn. Run it through a grinder then either blow it up in the silo or put it in bags. Rare to see pickers anymore

__________________
Deja Moo; The feeling I've heard this bull before.

A real farmer leaves the ground better than he found it....James

you do realize this farm is a family farm and they have had top production for years and years and years.you cant maintain that without improving continually.last year they produced 429ish in bushels.

__________________
i went to the woods because i wished to live deliberately to front only the essential facts of life,.......,and not,when i came to die,discover that i had not lived...Henry David Thoreau

Does the yeild moniter on a combine go by weight or volume? Does it have a moisture tester?

__________________
Flaming Xtian
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mahatma Gandhi


Libertarindependent

I'm pretty certain they have a moisture tester.


In my area, drying costs were said to be about $1.50/bushel for $4 corn with a test weight low enough that the ethanol plants might not want it. Some of it was still standing at Thanksgiving.

If they were using a GMO seed, that pretty much negates their organic status or am I misinformed?

That corn was about as far away from being organic as one can get. As far as the facts go, doesn't matter to the reporter as long as 10% of the readers actually believe it.

Martin

Doesn't mean they are taking care of the land, just means they are adding enough nutrients to make a big crop. It is still, all big chemical company, "organic" (yea right) or not....James

It most certainly was not organic. Bad of the reporter to say that, the grower never ever has claimed that!

To feed his soil, to feed the corn, he used some products that are, or are similar, to the types that organic folk would use.

As mentioned by others, you don't just pour on too much fertilizer and get a record corn yield in one year.

He spend many years developing that 10 acre plot, and feeding the soil, setting up the soil structure, the carbon ratio, and the biological activities to create a soil near perfect for corn growing.

I would say that is farming, that is taking care of the soil. It is a bit of a stunt of course, to aim for a high yield, not a good ecconomic return on investment. But that is the goal for such a plot, and good for him to get it right.

To be a farmer is to run a business, to feed your family and keep your farm going from good years to bad years. And take care of your business - the land - so it produces for you and your next generations.

My view of it all.

Paul

I'm sure it is no different in the US but in order to be considered organic, one needs organic certification and that requires a farm meet very stringent criteria and it frustrates me to no end that a reporter would slant an article to suggest that these people have met the legal criteria when they have not.

I wonder what the yield was in profit of dollars per acre after all expenses were paid? It would be interesting to see how things turned out if yield was measured that way. I'm not arguing with anyone on whats better, GMO, non GMO, OP, Organic, etc.... I'm just curious what yields would be if measured in profit per acre instead of bushels per acre. Would it be different, maybe, maybe not. I don't think Ive ever heard of such a test before. Has anyone out there heard of such a test?

WR, it's called yellow journalism. Fancy headline but no facts to back it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Martin

Fatrat, reading between the lines, you can probably bet that that record probably cost a lot less than someone getting 300 bushel. Whole works sounds like Biovante sponsored it. We'll never know how much they supplied, especially since the farmer said that he owed so much to them.

Martin

I did not intend to ruffle your feathers here.I was just saying as a lifelong farmer here in Iowa how things are here.

Us farmers kinda live that 'test' every year, if you think about it.

We don't always do it right every year, but we are trying to pass it all the time.

These yield tests are just fun to see what can be done. Sort of like the plowing bees, see how good a job you can do plowing the ground, straight, cover every bit of vegetation, etc. in the real world, they don't even want us plowing any more, you want some trash on top even with a plow. The test doesn't represent the real world, but it still is fun to see....

The soybean yield record holder is here in this story, 160 bu an acre:

http://www.farms.com/farmspages/expe...3&authorid=173

I saw him in person, he was a very common guy, talked very well about what he does for good yields, and how it so different to go for yield or go for good ecconomic yields. Also he said you have to work with what you have, the stuff he does in Missouri is far different than we would want to do up here in Minnesota. And how many years he worked at it, and how he is out in the field every day trying to think of what or why and how to improve things.

From what I read about the corn guy, kinda the same way. Common folk, they work hard at the tiny details to get everything right. Takes a little luck and help from ma nature too!

These guys have all sorts of companies wanting to sponcer them, that is just normal, everyone wants to be around a winner.

Paul

Just because a farmer uses fertilizers and herbicides, etc. does not mean he is somehow wrecking his soil. Healthy, high yielding crops need healthy soil to grow. ALL of us farmers depend on the soil, we depend on improving it, leaving it better than we found it.

"Organic" farmers certainly DO NOT have some kind of magical advantage over conventional farmers in soil improvements. Folks talk about conventional farmers wrecking the soil all the time, killing it with "chemical" fertilizers. Those chemical fertilizers have the EXACT same chemical composition as manure, once the soil biology converts them into plant available food.

If conventional farmers were wrecking their soil, yields would be trending down, not up. If the nasty fertilizers and gm plants, and herbicides were killing the soil, plants would be growing less efficiently, not more.

Just have to interject here, as some seem to be led to think certain things that are not based in reality, but based on some "organic" guru, writing some blog, from some urban co-operative garden, in some major city, 100 miles from the nearest farm greater than 4 000 square feet.

The reality is, fertilizer, whether "chemical" or "organic", supplies exactly the same nutrients to the plants and soil as the other. Manure adds some soil organic matter, for sure, but other than that, manure is the same dang thing, with one exception: It usually can not be applied with nearly the precision or accuracy that pelletized fertilizer can be applied, so guess which method causes more waste?