an even more frightening perspective

[TDub]

we’ve known for decades that rotational planting is more beneficial for numerous reasons, yet relatively few farmers (particularly those that are large-scale) actually do it

mixed vegetation in and around crop land is beneficial, yet rarely practiced

fertilizer and pesticides are still the norm, despite there being “better” ways

Everyone I know rotatea crops and fields.

On the other hand the CRP land is a joke. CRP grows to a certain point and then stagnates and degrades. It should be grazed, or utilized in other ways..after a couple years its value to the environment/climate is gone

[Deleted User 89]

we’ve known for decades that rotational planting is more beneficial for numerous reasons, yet relatively few farmers (particularly those that are large-scale) actually do it

mixed vegetation in and around crop land is beneficial, yet rarely practiced

fertilizer and pesticides are still the norm, despite there being “better” ways

Everyone I know rotatea crops and fields.

On the other hand the CRP land is a joke. CRP grows to a certain point and then stagnates and degrades. It should be grazed, or utilized in other ways..after a couple years its value to the environment/climate is gone

i was wrong about rotational growing. the overwhelming majority of crops are grown with some type of rotation (82-94 % based on a 2013 USDA survey)

what doesn’t happen is the use of cover crops - rather meaningless for food direct production, but incredibly beneficial for long-term productivity and stability

[TDub]

we’ve known for decades that rotational planting is more beneficial for numerous reasons, yet relatively few farmers (particularly those that are large-scale) actually do it

mixed vegetation in and around crop land is beneficial, yet rarely practiced

fertilizer and pesticides are still the norm, despite there being “better” ways

Everyone I know rotatea crops and fields.

On the other hand the CRP land is a joke. CRP grows to a certain point and then stagnates and degrades. It should be grazed, or utilized in other ways..after a couple years its value to the environment/climate is gone

i was wrong about rotational growing. the overwhelming majority of crops are grown with some type of rotation (82-94 % based on a 2013 USDA survey)

what doesn’t happen is the use of cover crops - rather meaningless for food direct production, but incredibly beneficial for long-term productivity and stability

Right...and if you plant cover crops and graze them off.....double win. Thats part of the integration change that need a to be a norm

[Deleted User 89]

where’s the beef?

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_doe ... erspective

... Four meat suppliers controlled a little over 20 percent of the beef supply market in 1970 and today, four companies control more than 85 percent of the market. In order for this to be possible, feed lots now contain up to 100,000 head of cattle, according to an interview award-winning, investigative journalist, Eric Schlosser did with PBS...

and i’m not even going to get into all of the health issues associated with feed lots (for both cows and pigs), and all the antibiotics pumped into the masses to try and deal with the issue. the feed animals have their health problems, but so too do the animal workers and those living in close proximity to the feed lots

[Deleted User 89]

there’s also the issue of the damage large herds of cattle do to the land, particularly when cattle aren’t a natural member of the ecosystem

there are some varieties of longhorn that are more sustainable, but they don’t produce near the milk or meat that most cattle do

[TDub]

Sure, theyre are downsides in everything...but benefits are real.

Im trying to find the study i read a couple weeks ago. The model they used showed that a 4% increase in grazing land (done correctly) would offset all of the excess carbon emissions of the US.

[Deleted User 89]

i wasn’t even talking emissions...just physical alteration

your comment about fences has a lot to do with it as well, but imo it really comes down to the “walking steaks“ that cattle have become. they aren’t fit for a natural environment

and while i do think americans, and many societies in general would do well to reduce and change their meat consumption, i’m by no means anti-meat (or even anti-beef).

i’m anti “industrialized” meat

[zsn]

What are you, some kind of enviro-nazi speaking of excess carbon emissions and the like.... don’t you know that the whole carbon emissions thing is a HOaX perpetrated by cannibal pedophiles.....wait...wrong conspiracy.....perpetrated by Al Gore.....

Anyway, increasing the grazing land sequesters CO2. However, the more insidious actor in climate change is methane whose natural sinks cannot keep up with production. It’s has much more potent IR absorption than CO2. The solution you propose can’t hurt but there are many whose vested interests would be severely impacted if implemented. For that reason they would fight the implementation (and yes, a majority are located in States whose occupants, according to PhD’s allegation, I dislike).

[TDub]

I think youre making assumptions that you dont know are true based on anything other than your preconceived ideas of how it is

[TDub]

4% isnt s large increas in land grazing.....grazing off cover crops isnt a huge change and it benefits both the rancher snd rhe farmer. These arent drastic changes. Just a reallocation of resources

[TDub]

Having talked to a number of ranchers and farmers...most are completely on board with moving this direction. They know the land and its value more than anyone else. They want to increase its production value long term. Its only the huge huge operations that dont give a fuck

[Deleted User 89]

i appreciate everyone’s take on this, but NOBODY is providing anything other than opinion and anecdote

i tried to do a bit of searching this morning, but can hopefully do some more this afternoon

our prairie ecosystems evolved under the grazing regimes of large ungulates (bison), but those animals were allowed to graze in a natural manner and roam far and wide. they were much more efficient than the livestock used today, and weren’t anywhere near as destructive.

and sorry, TDub, but i’ve got little faith in the ranchers of this country doing what’s best for the environment. one need look no further than wolves and prairie dogs to see the tone of their interactions. maybe i’m wrong.

[TDub]

Watch the netflix show and see the examples of how and where itbhas worked

[Deleted User 863]

we’ve known for decades that rotational planting is more beneficial for numerous reasons, yet relatively few farmers (particularly those that are large-scale) actually do it

mixed vegetation in and around crop land is beneficial, yet rarely practiced

fertilizer and pesticides are still the norm, despite there being “better” ways

Everyone I know rotatea crops and fields.

When I pull crop history reports I rarely (if ever) see a parcel in this area that does not rotate crops.

[Deleted User 89]

Watch the netflix show and see the examples of how and where itbhas worked

how very lobster of you

(i probably will watch)

[Deleted User 89]

https://nationalgeographic.org/article/ ... fications/

[TDub]

Again tho...thats talking avout current grazing and livestock raising practice. Thats not what I'm suggesting expanding. When managed correctly it turns these carbonand methane producers into carbon eaters

[TDub]

To me using natural environment and open spaces and living beings to reverse the process is much preferable to creating technology to overcome it and constantly reduce space, add structures and reduce quality of life (in my opinion.....i need open spaces to be content) the futuristic version of life in the movies with robots and stacked cities and manufactured everything with all metal and composite materials looks like a version of hell to me

[ChalkRocker]

?
n/m

[Deleted User 89]

i meant to make this comment yesterday, but if “we” don’t do something about the plastic problem, everything else may end up being moot