US Farmers and Ranchers new video "30 Harvests" How do you feel about this message?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

[QUOTE=tweety;422131][QUOTE=AlbertaFarmer5;422122]

The message I have been urging on this forum and elsewhere for years. Agriculture is the solution to climate change, not the problem.



Not quite, 50 percent less energy and 90% less greenhouse gas - the bad ones. and its not highly processed. Why do farmers keep saying this shit repeating mantras like the non gmo crowd. It's not being replaced, its providing more options for those who don't want to eat animals.

Farmers, like every other farmed out industry going to cheaper production in other countries, will be phased out an die a slow painful death. I agree, when is that asteroid coming?

When the price reflects that, then I will acknowledge it. Keep in mind that nearly all references to cattle water use, energy and emissions come from one discredited and very flawed study.

[tweety]

[QUOTE=AlbertaFarmer5;422136][QUOTE=tweety;422131]

When the price reflects that, then I will acknowledge it. Keep in mind that nearly all references to cattle water use, energy and emissions come from one discredited and very flawed study.

That's funny. Just 1 study in the whole world on feed conversion ratios, protein efficiency, calories per watt of different foods? Really, just 1 flawed study?

So what is the dude in the video going to do? Go try to borrow more money and be rejected again which is the reason he packed up in the first place? Go "organic"?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

[QUOTE=tweety;422138][QUOTE=AlbertaFarmer5;422136]

That's funny. Just 1 study in the whole world on feed conversion ratios, protein efficiency, calories per watt of different foods? Really, just 1 flawed study?

So what is the dude in the video going to do? Go try to borrow more money and be rejected again which is the reason he packed up in the first place? Go "organic"?

Lots of real information out there, but just one that fits the agenda and gets quoted ad nauseum.

[Blaithin]

No, Agriculture is the beneficiary of increasing CO2 and the climate improvement which has roughly coincided with that.

You take the niave perspective that anyone is actually looking for a real, workable solution to the issue(be it real or imagined). Just like how nuclear power is being shunned for wind and solar, and meat is to be replaced by a highly processed energy intensive product. No one is looking for actual workable solutions.

When climate alarmists start advocating for workable, practical solutions, instead of pie in the sky fairytales, then I will get on board with you. We are no where near that point, and at this rate, the entire climate crisis will have run its course long before we are in any position to benefit from any proposed solution.

So being a farmer in the position of directly impacting the land.... you wouldn't do or change anything until someone tells you to and you believe their ideas are practical?

Are you incapable of thinking for yourself and applying methods without being told by someone?

Or perhaps you think your current methods are perfect and require no improvement.

I believe you've got a variety of land types and management methods on the go. I don't think you're as anti regenerative, soil health, diversity, etc. as you seem to come off in some of your posts. Probably just more a case of anti government telling you what to do. And maybe against those specific terms being applied to what you do for whatever reason.


Farmers and the farming industry has always subsisted outside of more vocal and public circles. That doesn't mean it's been outside of research and innovation. Talk to any farmer right now and they probably have some level of amusement at what they were told were good practices even 20 years ago compared to what they are told are good practices now. A friend was remarking the other day how just a handful of years ago they were preached at to never plant more than one variety of wheat in a field yet now there's varieties that when planted with other's, can lend protection to the other.

There are economists who feel credits of some sort should be, and will eventually be, recorded and distributed to farmers based on their management methods and ecosystem services. Marian Weber is the one I can think of off the top of my head. Why should producers be so against the terminology or governments' utopian ideas that they refuse to even acknowledge how they could make changes that could have positive impacts on not just the environment, but on their bottom line as well. It would make more sense in my mind to experiment with methods while you can to figure out what would work with you so that maybe you can be one of the people with legit experience to help promote an avenue that is more practical for the industry. Seems like a better idea than just sitting back and arguing that nobody is coming up with practical solutions and nothing is ever going to work and the world is ending and we should all become American's.

Whether we like it or not, agriculture is in the spot light and makes a good scapegoat. There's not much we can do about that but we can try and take the power in our hands and make changes ourselves instead of sitting back and being told what we have to do by people who have less than half a clue about it.

[blackjack]

Silly me I always thought my check off dollars went to pay our individual farm groups to have our back with government.

[jazz]

In my experience, people will first take for granted what they are unconnected too. After that is ignorance and the final stage is an attack with a socialist money grab from it. Look what happened to energy. Its a play right out of atlas shrugged.

Same thing is waiting for ag. Despite all the fancy produced videos.