Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

So I know there are a few types of seeders out there. I am looking for some pros and cons about a couple types. Hopefully you can help.

Air seeders

I know these are better for smaller seeds

Can cover a large amount of ground without having to refill.

Planters

Better at precision planting. Better depth control.

Box drill ( are they John Deere specific?)

Can be used for multiple types of seeds.

What other types of seeders are there out there?

What are other pros and cons of these types of seeders above?

Views: 660

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Iain,

Seeding technology is a pretty wide topic.

Really depends upon the crop and how many acres you have.

Western Canada has alot of interesting air seeder options - small seed crops and vast acreages.

In Eastern Canada a 12 row corn planter is pretty standard on the larger cash crop farms.

It is farm show season, you might want to check out the major equipment companies and what is new.

RR

Thanks for replying. 

Yeah there does seem to be a lot of seeding technology out there.

Roadrunner said:

Hi Iain,

Seeding technology is a pretty wide topic.

Really depends upon the crop and how many acres you have.

Western Canada has alot of interesting air seeder options - small seed crops and vast acreages.

In Eastern Canada a 12 row corn planter is pretty standard on the larger cash crop farms.

It is farm show season, you might want to check out the major equipment companies and what is new.

RR

Hi Iain,

 

Here is a video we did this spring at Blaney Grain Farms - John Deere planter getting the corn planted.

 

 

Wow thanks for pointing out those video. Some really cool technology these days.

I need to get my hands on some to play with it to know how to use it better. One of these days. 

How long does it take to set up autosteer ?

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Ag in the House: Oct. 26 – 30

Minister MacDonald highlighted how the government is supporting food security

Exploring grape pomace’s potential as pork sausage preservative

Scientists at Iowa State University are studying grape pomace as an alternative preservative for pork breakfast sausage. The U.S. sausage market exceeds $7.5 billion. Processed meats often use synthetic ingredients to maintain overall quality, stability and safety. However, consumer preferences toward “clean-label” ingredients and recent reassessments of some food additives, such as butylated hydroxyanisole, are boosting interest in more natural alternatives. Grape pomace is a by-product of winemaking, obtained after pressing white grapes or after fermentation and pressing of red grapes. GP represents a rich source of fiber and phenolic compounds, but it is usually composted, used as animal feed or discarded. “This winemaking by-product is often wasted, but we know that GP has some antimicrobial and antioxidant properties,” said Aude Watrelot, assistant professor of enology in food science and human nutrition. “How effective would GP be when substituted for current additives in a po

Canadian Pork Research Enters New Phase with More Flexible Funding for Industry Priorities

Canada’s pork industry is strengthening its approach to research and innovation through a funding model designed to address both long-term industry priorities and emerging challenges facing producers. Swine Innovation Porc (SIP), the national organization coordinating research for Canada’s pork sector, has released its 2025–26 annual report, highlighting the continued development of its national research programs and the introduction of additional funding flexibility. At the centre of this approach are two complementary initiatives: the established Swine Cluster program and the newer Advancing Swine Research Program. Together, these programs are intended to strengthen the industry’s ability to invest in scientific discovery while supporting practical research that responds to changing production conditions. Building on More Than a Decade of Collaborative Research Since 2010, Canada’s Swine Cluster program has provided a foundation for coordinated research involving universities, re

Canadian Swine Researchers Face November 13 Deadline for Up to $150,000 in Research Funding

Swine Innovation Porc is seeking research proposals focused on animal health, biosecurity, production efficiency, sustainability and pork quality, with funding available for projects addressing key challenges facing Canada’s pork industry. Canadian swine researchers have until November 13 to submit letters of intent for a new round of funding through the Advancing Swine Research Program, an initiative designed to strengthen the competitiveness, efficiency and long-term sustainability of Canada’s pork sector. Administered by Swine Innovation Porc (SIP), in partnership with the Pork Promotion and Research Agency (PPRA), the program supports industry-focused research that delivers practical benefits to producers, processors and the broader pork value chain. Successful projects may receive funding covering up to 50% of eligible project costs, with a maximum contribution of $50,000 annually over three years, representing a potential investment of $150,000 per project. Research Prioritie

When Pork’s Seasonal Recovery Doesn’t Arrive: What Canada Packers’ Q3 Results Reveal About the Market

Canada Packers’ third-quarter results offer a revealing look at the pressures facing North American pork production. Beyond the company’s $28.1 million loss, the more important story involves weakening pork demand, unusually compressed processing margins, and questions about when the industry can expect more favourable market conditions. For an industry accustomed to seasonal fluctuations, the absence of a typical summer recovery in pork values may be one of the most significant developments emerging from Canada Packers’ latest earnings report. The company reported third-quarter sales of $420.7 million, down 12.7% from the same period in 2025, alongside a net loss of $28.1 million compared with a profit of $25.6 million a year earlier. Adjusted EBITDA declined to $31.5 million from a pro forma $56 million in the comparable period, reflecting the effects of broader market compression. The reported net loss also included a $47.6 million non-cash decline in the fair value of biological

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service