Farming in England

[Crazy Horse]

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food and if we lower it much more we will be in trouble by not having enough of it. "Global warming" will make double cropping practical in many areas. Is it perfect? Of course not, but neither is it really a bad thing as it will help toward a real abundance of food. Most of us will benefit.

Well, it's not really "food" as such VAI .... plants make their own food (and use up some of it themselves as an energy source). C02 is just one of the ingredients in the recipe, you must have forgotten that from science class. A lot of "things" in overabundance can be harmful. C02 is one of those things unfortunately. Double cropping as a solution sounds like a solution but of course it really isn't .... except in a discussion on an internet forum.

 

[Tony in SD]

Sometime I wonder if there is anyone left on here that really likes old tractor?

 

[RBnWA]

Sometime I wonder if there is anyone left on here that really likes old tractor?

Tony I still like old tractors and trucks. RB

 

[bc]

Hello Delta. Haven't seen you around in a while. Hope all is well. How did the Colorado peaches out your way do this year?

 

[Bruce from Can.]

Every country would show more love to farmers if there was a shortage of food. As things stand today, with new technological advancements in equipment, herbicides and genetic development in both plants and animals, and farmers readily adopting these new things and ideas. Globally there is an over abundance of food and crops in general. Yes there still are impoverished countries in the world where people go hungry, but it’s not because there isn’t enough food stuff grown, there just isn’t money to buy it. Developed countries have a surplus of agricultural products, and people everywhere want their food to be inexpensive. Despite razor thin margins for farmers, it’s usually the farmers that are made out to be the greedy villains.

 

[NoDakInMN]

No, not if you are receiving them. Only when somebody else benefits ....

So no one else benefits from a cheap food policy? Which incidentally was driving the influence behind farm subsidies for decades.

 

[NoDakInMN]

Delta
It's hard to talk about farming without talking about global warming which is political.

Excessive use of nitrogen-based fertilisers in agriculture is contributing to nitrous oxide emissions.

Leftover nitrogen that hasn’t been absorbed by plants, reacts with the soil to produce this dangerous greenhouse gas.

Agriculture accounts for 80% of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions globally and for 8-14% of all greenhouse gasses.

Helping farmers to apply more precise quantities of nitrogen fertiliser will thus be able to help combat climate change.

Read more at Michigan State University

Also making fertilizer produces large quantities of CO2.

An investment group wants to make a fertilizer in Terre Haute, capture the CO2 and inject it under ground.
That is creating a big stir. Don't put CO2 in my drinking water.

Nitrogen is such a dangerous greenhouse gas that our atmosphere is comprised of 78% nitrogen. Greenhouse gases, despite being villainized by pseudo scientists, are the very thing that makes our world something other than a frozen, baren, lifeless orb.

Science, true science, adheres to the Scientific Method, where to be accepted as factual, a proveable theory has to be postulated, then proven. No one in the climate change world has yet done that. In fact, quite the opposite has happened, multiple predictions have been made that certain events would happen by certain dates, but none have succeeded in coming true. Does climate change? Yes, it certainly does, but it has been doing so for the entire existence of the planet. There has been nothing proven that demonstrates we are on track to a doomsday scenario with our climate, yet that is the mantra certain people are pushing. Worse, these same people seek to silence criticism of their mantra, which in itself is about as anti science as it gets.

 

[NoDakInMN]

Every country would show more love to farmers if there was a shortage of food. As things stand today, with new technological advancements in equipment, herbicides and genetic development in both plants and animals, and farmers readily adopting these new things and ideas. Globally there is an over abundance of food and crops in general. Yes there still are impoverished countries in the world where people go hungry, but it’s not because there isn’t enough food stuff grown, there just isn’t money to buy it. Developed countries have a surplus of agricultural products, and people everywhere want their food to be inexpensive. Despite razor thin margins for farmers, it’s usually the farmers that are made out to be the greedy villains.

There is no shortage of food, there are political roadblocks to its distribution. Totalitarian regimes frequently use food, or the lack of it, as means to control their people.

 

[Mcrafty1]

Delta
It's hard to talk about farming without talking about global warming which is political.

Excessive use of nitrogen-based fertilisers in agriculture is contributing to nitrous oxide emissions.

Leftover nitrogen that hasn’t been absorbed by plants, reacts with the soil to produce this dangerous greenhouse gas.

Agriculture accounts for 80% of human-caused nitrous oxide emissions globally and for 8-14% of all greenhouse gasses.

Helping farmers to apply more precise quantities of nitrogen fertiliser will thus be able to help combat climate change.

Read more at Michigan State University

Also making fertilizer produces large quantities of CO2.

An investment group wants to make a fertilizer in Terre Haute, capture the CO2 and inject it under ground.
That is creating a big stir. Don't put CO2 in my drinking water.

Depends entirely on which scientists you believe, the ones not receiving a steady flow of government grant money tend to have different 'scientific' outlook than those that do.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Nitrogen is such a dangerous greenhouse gas that our atmosphere is comprised of 78% nitrogen. Greenhouse gases, despite being villainized by pseudo scientists, are the very thing that makes our world something other than a frozen, baren, lifeless orb.

Science, true science, adheres to the Scientific Method, where to be accepted as factual, a proveable theory has to be postulated, then proven. No one in the climate change world has yet done that. In fact, quite the opposite has happened, multiple predictions have been made that certain events would happen by certain dates, but none have succeeded in coming true. Does climate change? Yes, it certainly does, but it has been doing so for the entire existence of the planet. There has been nothing proven that demonstrates we are on track to a doomsday scenario with our climate, yet that is the mantra certain people are pushing. Worse, these same people seek to silence criticism of their mantra, which in itself is about as anti science as it gets.

"multiple predictions have been made that certain events would happen by certain dates" ...... so we've been dealing with the issues associated with climate change for a few decades now for the most part and you sre suggesting that there have been dates predicted by some that haven't yet come to fruition with a process that happens over time periods we can't even comprehend in our minds? I'm curious to hear one of those that was a legitimate prediction that could have happened in such a short time period.