Bowsite.com

Don't fall for their lies.

So, if I assume that the number is correct, the next questions are about its significance. Without that information, I can't get alarmed.

There is nothing to be alarmed about. The enriched CO2 in our atmosphere is a benefit to crops and all green life. It tends downward as it is heavier than air. Of course one needs to add vital nutrients to the soil after it is worked and crops grown on it. Anyone with a home garden knows that. And farmers do too. Honestly they do.

Intensive farming is a net gain . Although some don't appreciate such things as Round up ready plants , it does reduce the tilling and produces more abundance in the same space as well as the reduced need for further chemical control . Darn good products too come from GMO alterations . It is irrational to think a farmer is not taking care of his livelihood (soil quality) to best produce the crop intended.

Soil can and should be managed and it is in the interest of the farmer to do so. Resting the land (alternating crops, cover crops and alternating areas of production is easily accomplished ) . There is so much unused farm-able land that it is a wonder how this could be perceived as an issue at all. (specially , used for livestock needs not our produce) Land in South America if we need to expand .

Deforestation is initially a negative but the replanting or natural spread of plants is astounding. In fact a new growth environment is very productive . More problematic would be the artificial surfaces that we cover our land with (roads buildings and such) but that is such a small proportion of our land mass as to be insignificant in the carbon cycle . Same for farming . It is such a small fraction of this green world that it is a non issue. Regarding the additional co2. in the atmosphere.

Apparently the earth has increased by 11% vegetation since the industrial revolution so it seems counter intuitive to conclude there is a loss of carbon when it is sitting right there on top of it . But I suppose it is specific to the dirt (Soil) on these farms , not the overall loss to our world.

I'm not buying it . Calling BS on this story. Not the soil issue That part is true but the inference that this is part of our "climate issue" is not .

Nature rebounds with a vengeance. Man burns Carbon for his welfare and Nature responds with stimulated growth. Great system , Thank God.

The gist of this and other like stories are generated by Man Made Global Climate Change kooks. I advocate a cover crop or a simple addition of green matter as some Tractor equipment (implements ?) does do and should do. It leaves behind what is not harvested as the food portion and this should offset most of the soil loss . There is no viable alternative than to return what we take from the soil. We must harvest right ?

What is your solution ? what is your beef ?

The myth continues to be perpetrated.

Ha/KS show the source ? I love a good myth when I can get one....

I am not a dirt guy but I do know that adding stover back to the soil helps in creating soil. Corn does create a lot of stover.

I do like the positive sides to ethanol. However the negative sides are costly. The loss of habitat as well as CRP etc is insane just to make a few more bucks.

There are not many cover crops planted every year from what I see in the Midwest. A few but not many. I know my grandpa and uncle only did it for future alfalfa fields.

One more thing Kansas, Nebraska the Dakotas etc will not fall till. Once again to aid in moisture for the following years crops.

With farm ground at $4,000 per acre, it has to produce a crop every year just to keep the farmer's head above water.

My intended point was that there is an abundance of land to farm and it should be kept healthy. It is a catch 22 between land health and farm and product cost we all understand that.

Personally I think it is ridiculous to be making ethanol . Cost per gallon is very high and not "saving our environment" one bit. Waist of good land resources if you ask me.

But what could I know ... I'm stuck in Massachusetts ... ...Really ?

Good point to the resting cost HA/KS. and to the weeds issue , hence an occasional cover crop to add back to the soil and block weed growth( Round up ready Peas if it exists.) . I don't have the economic answer. Just the environmental angle addressing erosion of top soil and soil fertility and carbon value in soil . I think it is solvable but it adds to the cost of the next crop granted. Cant have it both ways and it is a pickle. But If it is a problem it must be fixed.

Cant read or follow along Pig man ? Pick what you want to and harp on that , you really are easy to talk to. Still Fired! This is the last time I talk with you.

Your a bore.

What you say is true, BUT (there's always a "but"), fire is a natural phenomena and is a necessary part of an natural ecosystem. There are some species of trees that only release seed when they're subject to fire. It can be argued that sometimes the worst thing you can do is prevent fire and let the understory and duff get to a level that when is there is a fire it is hotter and more widespread that it would normally be. Once again, a case of man "helping" nature.

I have several acres of prairie pasture that I don't put horses on and I burn it every few years in early spring. You should see the plants that season after a burn! It's like a super shot of nitrogen! If I do it every other year or so then it never get's to be a really hot fire because the fuel level isn't overwhelming. It's a quick fire but not all that hot. It'll burn dead grass and such but not young trees. I think there's a lot to be said for controlled burns if that's feasible. NOTHING is stable in nature, it's going to change in one way of the other whether we approve of it or not, so we may as well do it but when we can control it to a degree.

"This thread is hilarious. Bunch of testosterone-stoked keyboard cowboys."

Straight from the mouths of babes...

* ( 12, 000 years ago ?. I don't think the problem goes back that far and I doubt there was much farming as we know it ,in the same spot as now. And the planet is greener , hence the carbon is not missing. Lost from vegitation ? WTF does that mean ?)

However the figure is still dwarfed by the 450 billion tonnes of carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution began and humans started burning fossil fuels on an unprecedented scale.

* ( what does that have to do with a specific space (the agricultural zone) losing carbon "locally" by unsound farming practices ? Sounds like a MMGW correlation which is why it started to smell like BS to me right away )

Soil is obviously vitally important for the growth of crops that feed humans and livestock. Concern has been growing what some refer to as the “soil fertility crisis”, a problem that can be masked by the use of artificial fertilizers. ( Well...)

* Not "masked" which infers "a sneaky wool over the eyes ...". To whom would they be masking ? The soil fertility loss is being compensated for with Fertilizers and that isn't healthy for the natural soil condition . OK so what ? It can be fixed. But its not being fixed .... I get it, but so what ? It will eventually have to be fixed . And the temporary loss of CO2 in a portion of our huge land mass doesn't constitute a crisis.

Carbon released from the soil also contributes to global warming.

* This is where the agenda of MMGW horsedookie gets going thick and is the real message of this article ... Totally BS. There is such a small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere .004% and our contribution is a fraction of that. That even saying this farming caused - "soil carbon loss" adds to global warming is beyond reasonable to say. Misleading and goes to the myth of CO2 being a driver of Climate. Its BS.

Somehow this was not a problem for other readers. It was for me. - Pi

Their agenda is NOT healthier soils. Their agenda is taking away freedom of landowners to use their land as they see fit.

---Open borders via "amnesty".

---Forced health care purchase, regardless of what the individual wants.

“The consequences of human domination of soil resources are far ranging: accelerated erosion, desertification, salinization, acidification, compaction, biodiversity loss, nutrient depletion, and loss of soil organic matter.""

Looks like Thomas Robert Malthus was right...?

If you make your living growing and selling ag products I would listen...... but those trying to make some point about how humans are evil..... not so much. In reality they have no skin in the game. The clearly make their living elsewhere.... as American farmers feed the world.... If so concerned I would guess those who new better would jump in and show everyone how it should be done......

I'll be over here..... holding my breath......

Population went up by 2X more than he predicted and yet the Rate of hunger is in decline . Virtuous behavior ,didn't happen because we feed people ?. Perhaps that is the unfortunate reality...

This next line makes a case ,that we should not feed the poor , in order to starve people into being less dependent and helpless and in a state of moral decline.

(1798) Malthus reasoned that the constant threat of poverty and starvation served to teach the virtues of hard work and virtuous behavior.[16] "Had population and food increased in the same ratio, it is probable that man might never have emerged from the savage state,"[17] he wrote, adding further, "Evil exists in the world not to create despair, but activity."[18]

Malthus wrote that mankind itself was solely to blame for human suffering:

"I believe that it is the intention of the Creator that the earth should be replenished; but certainly with a healthy, virtuous and happy population, not an unhealthy, vicious and miserable one. And if, in endeavoring to obey the command to increase and multiply,[19] we people it only with beings of this latter description and suffer accordingly, we have no right to impeach the justice of the command, but our irrational mode of executing it.

Hhmmm . That's a thought .

I will fail at times , but I will succeed more often.

My rule Number One: ignore...that is unless I want to play ;0)

I have to update a few rules ... and will play until it seems too personal to make it worth while ... I accept , that sometimes the Spirit rules the day or event ... He who lives by the Spirit will not be judged by the law / rules. And then "blam", someone gets a loving smack. LOL 2

Apparently he was a preacher. Yet he talks about mans development and evolution as it pertains to mans "emerging from his savage state". To the Faith ,that is heretical talk . Fine by me if he struggled with this , but its conflicting with the idea that God is the mover of mans development and not other men , certainly not agricultural practices... Seems he was walking two diverse paths . The great divide...

Agreed, there's been a lot of that lately. Great thread Spike.

Carbon lost in soil since man's agricultural evolution began? So, for those in the know about agriculture, where does the carbon come from in the first place?

How is this program funded and who is the recipient? Why in the world would you even need a program that is "self managed" because of terrain that is hard on equipment, but a farmer can make more if farmed? Seems the farmer would need an incentive not to farm if he can make money from it. Yes...?

Pigdoc,

I doubt if JTV is a mall cop, he is a US Veteran. The point you've missed is he's shown you more respect then you've shown him. He also has friends. Which is something you clearly don't have. Now tell us again how much money you have and great your fantastic life is. Then get lost.

I think that you can see the entire film if you have the Discovery Channel on cable or other provider, but I don't know how that works.

The CRP costs taxpayers almost $2 billion a year — this year, that amounts to about 8 percent of all farm subsidies. Congress established the program in 1985. It's the oldest and largest of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's efforts to protect soil, water and wildlife in farming areas.

The program's goals have shifted over the years. "The CRP started out as an erosion-control program. It's evolved into a wildlife and water-quality program," says Robert Harkrader, a district conservationist with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service in Coffee County, Kan.

Farmers offer to enroll their land in the CRP. It has to be land where crops previously grew. If the USDA accepts the offer, the farmer gets paid a fee, roughly equivalent to the rental value of the land, to stop growing crops on it.

How is this program funded and who is the recipient? Why in the world would you even need a program that is "self managed" because of terrain that is hard on equipment, but a farmer can make more if farmed? Seems the farmer would need an incentive not to farm if he can make money from it. Yes...?"

I was hoping someone could help me understand, but I guess no takers...

Why pay for what isn't going to be farmed because it is hard on equipment ?

Read up on the history of the tributaries of the snake river in Wa, ID, OR before the program. One example is the Palouse river. One of the best trout stream in the world before mechanized farming allowed farmers along the river to till ever inch of ground. Every fall and spring the river looked like chocolate milk from run off. It was also choking the snake river and they would have to dredge to allow barges past sand bars. Most of that has gone away. The trout have not returned like they were 100 years ago but the steelhead and Salmon thrive in that part of the snake. The small mouth and cat fishing is world class and so is the hunting. It's paradise.

Reimbursing for lost production, subsidies, or renting private land for public benefit is all just the same, it's all just a matter of semantics...

^

2 Billion dollars is only 8% of all handouts to farmers?

What do you think guys should I raise grass or grain fed beef?

I need some handouts....

"Through the Organic Farming Research Foundation farmers can receive up to $15,000 per year for a research project related to organic farming or ranching."

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

There is ZERO benefit to ethanol. ZERO. It destroys small engines, less MPG, increase in food, meat, poultry, etc prices...

The other "complaint" is the loss of organic material in the soil that has been "used up" and yet there are advanced technologies and strategies that suggest the very arguement of a "used up" resource is outdated.

And then, there are some who recognize that a farmer is incentivized to allow crop land to go to CRP, but others can't seem to get their head around it.

For 'the one(s)' I suggest go back and very carefully read what has been posted, come back without a conceited viewpoint and not assume they know everything about a thread contributor. This will prevent the condition of the word 'assume', in this case it's just "u ass"...

Used up. Term used loosely and refers to gone and difficult to come back, hence the "slang" use of quotation marks around it.

As far as ethanol in fuel, bad move for several reasons. Most will agree to that. That is, however, a different topic for a different thread.

And now, back to Hee Haw...