Feedlot Public Meeting TONIGHT (10/16) in Lewiston

The latest conservation news, issues, or concerns in our backyard, city, state, or country.

Postby High Stick » Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:04 am

Maybe dairy farmers, like those planting corn and beans should produce less. Supply and demand. If they supply is so high, putting more rows of corn and more dairy cattle out there isn't going to fix it. Interestingly, I had this very conversation with a farming friend this week. He basically said that farmers need to look in the mirror and stop planting right up to the edge of the stream. Farming's reaction to pricing has always been to produce more.

This romantic idea of what you think farming is, is dying. American agriculture is at a crossroads, and they need to figure some things out.

We'll get to subsidies another day.
High Stick Offline


 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Postby S.T.Fanatic » Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:54 pm

Farmers know it but planting less doesn't pay the bills. The clean water bill is on the chopping block. Gotta love how the liberal news outlet makes it sound like there has never been a buffer requirement. Talks about using the amendment money to pay farmers being unconstitutional. It would make the most sense to enter the buffers into a perpetual conservation easement and pay the land owners accordingly. IMO that would qualify as using the funds to protect water quality.

Subsidies, good luck with that one. There are way to many politicians that own farm land to ever see that reduced or eliminated.
“What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?” Aldo Leopold
S.T.Fanatic Offline


 
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm
Location: I live where dipshit says I do every chance he gets.

Postby mcktrout » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:43 am

IMO

Buffers are a good practice. Compensating farmers, like the proposals being offered, may be more cost effective than trying to monitor+enforce+penalize. Yes, we are paying farmers to do what is already in their best interest. But if the result is increased compliance at reduced cost, it could be a win-win for everybody.
mcktrout Offline

User avatar
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:56 am

Postby High Stick » Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:21 am

High Stick Offline


 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 am
Location: Driftless and The West

Postby S.T.Fanatic » Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:47 am

Yup all Trumps fault. There wasn't bad markets before 2016 and rural kids weren't going to college because there wasn't enough money to be made in agriculture. Give me a frickin break CNN. Easy to push down the throats of city slickers that dont know anything about rural america.
“What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?” Aldo Leopold
S.T.Fanatic Offline


 
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm
Location: I live where dipshit says I do every chance he gets.

Previous

Return to Conservation News & Action Alerts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron