Posted on 03/10/2025 5:43:11 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Carolyn Jones never thought it was controversial to herd her cattle to different parts of her 200-acre ranch in northeastern Mississippi to give the grass time to grow back between grazing.
“This is really simple stuff we have been doing since the beginning of time,” said Jones, a lifelong farmer and the head of the nonprofit Mississippi Minority Farmers Alliance.
About 40 percent of U.S. cattle ranchers already use this technique. It helps ranchers keep their grass healthier, but it also helps the environment.
Last year, the Alliance won a USDA contract to educate other farmers about these long-standing conservation practices. The project description labeled them “climate resilient farming practices” to appeal to President Joe Biden’s green priorities.
Now, the Trump administration is considering axing the project, along with hundreds of other agreements “related to climate initiatives,” according to internal USDA documents.
Jones’s project was among those flagged for termination. The reason, was that the project was funded through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s signature climate program.
Under Biden, farmers, companies and nonprofits say they learned to mention climate and diversity to get an edge on their farm aid applications.
“When we applied for the grant, it was a different environment, so we used all those buzzwords,” said Penelope Nagel, co-founder of Soilytics, a company that measures nutrients in the soil to help farmers target their fertilizer use so they can save money and grow better crops.
She sprinkled phrases like “climate change” and “nitrogen use efficiency” into her application for $150,000 to demonstrate her firm’s soil measuring technology on seven farms in South Carolina. Now, those words may come back to bite her.
“Hopefully we don’t get kicked out,” she said, adding, “This is not climate-specific. This is about helping farmers be more productive.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
My experience with farmers is that they can get the word out without government being involved.
The farming associations can always set up a web page designed for better farming.
“200-acre ranch”
????
LMAO
“...head of the nonprofit Mississippi Minority Farmers Alliance”
Tells you all you need to know.
If you need the government to tell farmers to rotate their grazing, then these farmers should be left to fail.
****For decades, the USDA has paid experts to help farmers implement techniques to keep their land fertile and productive, such as fencing off fields to keep cows from overgrazing, planting cover crops to keep soil from eroding or targeting fertilizer use. Many of these projects also help the environment by reducing pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.****
These simple facts of farm life are like “duh? no kidding?” even if Eddie Albert came in and bought a farm wouldn’t the other guys mention these things t him when they all have breakfast at the local cafe?
How many 100s of millions of dollars and experts do we need to permanently keep telling these family farmers with degrees and computers and decades of expertise and experience who live in a social world of fellow farmers with expertise and experience, the same things over and over, or even a new thing if one comes up every 20 years or so?
Why is this a government function? Too much money spent on this stuff.
Really the first three comments together say it all for me.
My late FIL used to have a hobby herd of about 50 Herefords on about 100 acres. Useful for sure, but no one ever deluded themselves into thinking this was a big serious family-supporting operation.
I will argue that the programs you mention are not federal government originated but rather by state agricultural agencies staffed by graduates of the land grant colleges established to teach agriculture and engineering.
The purpose was not to improve farming techniques, the purpose was to fund democrats. These “non-profit” NGO parasites need to be investigated, tried, and incarcerated.
***** email that instructed regional and state conservationists to scrutinize each line item for such terms as “climate adaption and resilience planning,” “environmental education/workforce training,” “biodiversity and ecosystem resilience related to climate change,” and “climate smart agriculture and land use that does not directly benefit farmers.”*****
That is the reason for spending 100s of millions of dollars and having experts permanently assigned to the farmers, it is to make them go against what they know and to have things imposed on them that they don’t want to do.
It’s just like the mob.
Once you take their money, the needed ‘loan’, you’re toast.
You tried the heroin, the fentynal, that one single drink (for some people).... now you’re hooked.
Gotta be like Nancy with government money - just say no!
I like the idea of hobby farms. I’m too sift-hearted to betray my walking meat charts, so if I had one I would probably do more of a garden type.
This War on Natural Recourse Harvesters has gone on since in was started by Noxious Nixon. Enough. Just halt all farming, ranching, mining, commercial fishing, and logging in the US under penalty of draconian Federal punishment.
We can get out food from grocery stores who make it in their backrooms or from China were all great tasting eggs and nutritious cooking oils are made from industrial waste.
I understand. We have farmed in this county since 1889. We are not ranchers, but have always had some cattle. We have a 60 acres pasture plus 20 acres improved pasture. 1/3 of it is sub irrigated spring fed. That has made it possible. There is a 240 acre fenced cultivated portion on that farm, which can be planted in wheat for winter pasture. It is not always planted in wheat.
She rotates her pastures; a basic principle. She jumped on the gravy train pretending the practice was somehow saving the planet and now I’m supposed to feel bad for her? Nah.
“ I will argue that the programs you mention are not federal government originated but rather by state agricultural agencies…”
A little of both with the Soil Conservation Service from the USDA being the lead agency since the Dust Bowl days.
“Hopefully we don’t get kicked out,” she said, adding, “This is not climate-specific. This is about helping farmers be more productive.”
Why are we the American taxpayers, paying her 150K to promote her business? If it's so beneficial to farmers she shouldn't have any problems and not need us to bump up her lifestyle.
Lying was the way you got money from democrats ,LOL
Good. Then you don't need government money to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.