Our Pm has a plan and its a Bad Bad Plan!

[tweety]

Its only worth mentioning grassy if you're creating carbon by not emitting more carbon. Otherwise you're the problem just like the rest of us. Only difference is we know we're not sustainable. Ag today is not in any way sustainable.

[grassfarmer]

Its only worth mentioning grassy if you're creating carbon by not emitting more carbon. Otherwise you're the problem just like the rest of us. Only difference is we know we're not sustainable. Ag today is not in any way sustainable.

It's worth mentioning if your farm can sequester more than it emits, then you are part of the solution not the problem. I agree with your comment that most ag today is not in any way sustainable - that's why we need to change.

[tweety]

You in no way, not even close do that. So here we are full circle grassy, while i may pay my carbon tax, and since i have no other ways to reduce carbon, out of ideas, pushed as far as possible, i'm not reducing carbon. I'm just less competitive against those that have thought this through.

Show me a single news link that says what will happen with the carbon tax proceeds. anything at all.

[grassfarmer]

You in no way, not even close do that. So here we are full circle grassy, while i may pay my carbon tax, and since i have no other ways to reduce carbon, out of ideas, pushed as far as possible, i'm not reducing carbon. I'm just less competitive against those that have thought this through.

Show me a single news link that says what will happen with the carbon tax proceeds. anything at all.

How do you know the numbers for my farm tweety? you don't. The figures out of SK that show 17-39kgs of CO2 sequestered for every kg emitted by the cattle are encouraging.
The objective is not to reduce carbon, its to increase carbon in the soil, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Have you thought of growing more of your own N through legumes incorporated in your rotations? Factory N production is a huge source of CO2 emissions.
I posted some suggestions that are circulating as to how the carbon tax may be implemented and the proceeds used a few weeks ago. It doesn't seem firm decisions have been made by Governments on this yet - this is the chance to be involved in influencing these decisions.We've all got a voice.

[seabass]

U talk like your the only jesus christ superstar that can increase organic matter in a koombaya world. Wake up man there a plenty of people I know that grain farm conventionally that are holding the O.M. or increasing it with big crops. Feeding alot more people than some hocus pocus method your playing around with. What the hell would u want 15% O.M for any way. Sounds like pure shit for dirt. My old manure piles are like that. Try and grow alfalfa in that and it wont do so good.

[grassfarmer]

What the hell would u want 15% O.M for any way.

Why would you want money in the bank?

[tweety]

Really, a pulse can fix its own nitrogen? Fascinating.

[checking]

No, gasfarmer.

I do believe it's 11.4 kg of CO2 emitted / live kg of cattle, plus the methane belching.

I don't believe you will be given any credit for carbon sequestration since you are not at pre-industrial levels that buffalo accomplished. We will pay for every tonne we emit. There will be no free amount that should be allocated (amount emitted at the base year 2005).

Did you really extract an OM premium on the sale of your ranch in Alberta, or whatever the heck you did in Scotland?

[grassfarmer]

I'm not looking for carbon credits or to enhance sale value of a property due to enhanced OM levels. The reward of enhanced profitability every year I'm farming it is enough for me. Creating my own wealth on the farm while most in conventional agriculture complain of poverty due to the overpriced inputs they "have" to buy. Questioning why anyone would want 15.9% OM takes the biscuit though, that'll keep me chuckling for a while.

[tweety]

Grassfarmer, if you dig really deep eliminating most of the carbon emissions in cattle production, you can convince yourself you are a net sink. Just like biofuel is green, grassy so are you.

In reality, you are not, and neither is biofuel. And within a decade you will be replaced by synthetic meat production anyways, so days are numbered regardless.

Nitrous oxide is the real culprit, and that will change agriculture far more then any carbon issues that are being used merely for political gain at this time.

Red meat requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions. When compared to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more greenhouse gases.

So yes Grassy, convince yourself. The rest of us know better.