What the ****

Tanya 93 said:

---

I am not raising bacon for anyone

---

Can I have yours???

Can my land bank be Grand Teton NP? Thanks in advance!

Bingo. He floundered for 20sec and then found a safety schpiel that sounded like he could get away with it... but actually had NOTHING to do with her question.

Also; ALL plants pull carbon out of the air. It's how they create their freaking structure.

Manure as fertilizer; real revolutionary idea... Several thousand years ago!

Perhaps he circled back to "Reducing regulatory burdens" but I doubt he ever did, because that's not in his plan.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

LOL, belly laughed.

We need to all be praying for this country. No way can this man be president.

I despise the man, but it's to the point of cruelty with him. I can't believe anyone voting for him gives two ****s about fellow citizens or the future of this nation.

Allow me to explain for Komrade Biden

He means this:

At this point, the dems should trot out Ozzy as he makes a little more sense. Geez .....his, what ever "it" is, is getting worse by the day. He'll be spitting out Jello cubes by the end of the month.

aggiehawg said:

---

Cassius said:

---

As far as growing crops, that doesn't remove carbon. Crops are harvested.

---

What?

Plants use photosynthesis that removes CO2.

---

But what do plants crave?


Sadly, we are already here and it's nowhere close to 2505.

FriscoKid said:

---

We need to all be praying for this country. No way can this man be president.

---

Oh, he won't. Not for long at least. Harris, on the other hand, would be even worse.

I'm just imagining someone in Biden's campaign office going, "we have to lean into the dementia thing and just have him say nonsense. That's the only way - we have to confuse the voters!" Along with a bunch of yes men agreeing that that idea is genius.

rgag12 said:

---

I'll stick with my air bank thank you very much

---

Yeah, well Trump has moved on to a space bank. So welcome to yesterday.

OldArmyBrent said:

---

I'm just imagining someone in Biden's campaign office going, "we have to lean into the dementia thing and just have him say nonsense. That's the only way - we have to confuse the voters!" Along with a bunch of yes men agreeing that that idea is genius.

---

Sadly it's more like

"Look, absolutely nobody on our side is voting FOR Joe. They're voting AGAINST Trump so screw it, we just have to keep his public appearances to a bare minimum, avoid the debates with a phony COVID diagnosis and let the voter fraud operation do its thing"

Aggie Joe 93 said:

---

It's like listening to a stream of unconsciousness.

---

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

If I'm being generous I could assume he is vaguely talking about CRP ground, but he then elaborates and it goes off the rails.

We are one EPA regulation away from government bureaucrats dictating fertility programs and production schedules.

---

First thing he does is insult her for voting for Trump. But she's too classy to take that bait.

Next, I love how he tells her he's going to lower regulations...by putting in massive government programs, then diverts to chicken s**t. How appropriate.

I also notice she tells him how he plans to institute the Green New Deal, and he tries to tell her that's not true, but once he has the floor, he forgets to say anything about it.

Regarding "land banks", there was a program much like CRP, back in the 1960s. It was called the "Soil Bank". So perhaps he's thinking back to the 1960s.

Also, there is a federally authorized Land Bank system, but that's a lending agency, a cooperative system to help farmers buy land. So perhaps that's part of where he' screwed up.

And as you said, there is currently a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which takes highly erodible land out of production, reducing air and water pollution, and as an unintended consequence, has been a boon to wildlife.

So if he thinks we need to sequester carbon, and take land out of production, all he has to do is increase funding on the already successful CRP program. Many CRP contracts have, or will soon run out, allowing the land to be put back into production. Many existing contracts have been offered to be reissued, but with much lower payment rates. Raise the rates, resign old contracts, offer new contracts.

well land banks or conservation easements which I think he was trying to say takes land outta production

So basically he's a babble moron.

16Ag18 said:

---

No one going to talk about how awkward it was at the beginning when he asked "how do you feel now?" And she just kept talking? Lol

---

That was a clear tell that Biden had been told that the audience were all friendly and for him.

Why else would he insult her about voting for Trump unless his expected response from her was along the lines of "I regret my decision to vote for Trump and am looking for a alternative" as a planned gotcha moment soundbite. It wouldn't surprise me if that woman played up her interest in Biden in order to make it into the heavily controlled audience. As far as I could tell, her's was the only mildly antagonistic question Biden got all night, so she probably sandbagged the Biden handlers and slipped in past the screeners.

Cassius said:

---

As far as growing crops, that doesn't remove carbon. Crops are harvested.

---

It depends.

If 100% of the crop is harvested and consumed, the carbon goes back into the cycle. But certain farming methods, such as one I use, no-till, leaves the stalks and leaves on the ground, and plant the new crop into the stubble. It ties up the carbon for much longer, and improves the organic matter (carbon) in the soil profile.

Of course, that stubble eventually breaks down releasing the carbon, But it does it over 2-3 years, as opposed to clean tillage, where you plow under the stubble and it breaks down in a few weeks or months, returning the carbon quickly.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

As far as growing crops, that doesn't remove carbon. Crops are harvested.

---

It depends.

If 100% of the crop is harvested and consumed, the carbon goes back into the cycle. But certain farming methods, such as one I use, no-till, leaves the stalks and leaves on the ground, and plant the new crop into the stubble. It ties up the carbon for much longer, and improves the organic matter (carbon) in the soil profile.

Of course, that stubble eventually breaks down releasing the carbon, But it odes it over 2-3 years, as opposed to clean tillage, where you plow under the stubble and it breaks down in a few weeks or months, returning the carbon quickly.

---

well under Joe's plan you'll be forced to stop growing crops and your land will be put into a bank, then the govt will give you a little somein' somein' each month to live off of.

boom, no more govt regulations.

aggiehawg said:

---

Cassius said:

---

As far as growing crops, that doesn't remove carbon. Crops are harvested.

---

What?

Plants use photosynthesis that removes CO2.

---

Then they are harvested. CO2 is released back into the atmosphere in some other way.

his concluding statement was literally horse manure. that's amazing.

So he's going to create a new industry. Who is going to pay for the product?

twk said:

---

richardag said:

---

So he not only didn't answer the question, he elaborated that the government will add more programs that will pay farmers to grow crops that the government wants farmers to grow. Bigger government is the Democrats solution to everything (re: short answer: Democrats want MORE POWER AND AUTHORITY OVER EVERYONE)

---

Exactly. He's not planning to decrease the regulatory burden--he's going to increase it exponentially. That was the hallmark of the Obama administration.

---

Which brings up a salient and relevant point: WHAT evidence is there that Biden would do anything different from the Obama administration days??? (and we know what thought of that and what it did) In fact, isn't it far, far more likely he would just simply resume where Obama left off and where Hillary's defeat put things on hold? Even the wrecking middle class suburbs scheme was an Obamian and Jarrett one -- -not new to the Dems under Trump.

ABATTBQ87 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Cassius said:

---

As far as growing crops, that doesn't remove carbon. Crops are harvested.

---

What?

Plants use photosynthesis that removes CO2.

---

How much Co2 does a redwood absorb in a lifetime?

Redwood is one of the trees with the highest carbon dioxide absorption capacity and it is capable of decreasing air pollution.

Studies show that a Redwood plantation can absorb carbon dioxide from 2,700 vehicles in a year.

---

He's not talking about planting trees that persist for decades. He's talking about crops, at least that's what it sounded like. Trees would sequester carbon for a long period, but ultimately, it's all going back to the atmosphere.

Humans are taking carbon that was buried millions of years ago, and releasing it into the atmosphere.

And corn/bamboo/grass do WAY more (CO2 uptake).

While their carbon sequestration period is much shorter, it can be converted into non-CO2 which is the ultimate goal.

Just watch his facial expressions change as she works through her question.

You can tell he was told it'd be all friendlies asking questions, and as she progressed through her question you could tell he was thinking oh crap what is this?

Cassius said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Cassius said:

---

As far as growing crops, that doesn't remove carbon. Crops are harvested.

---

What?
Plants use photosynthesis that removes CO2.

---

Then they are harvested. CO2 is released back into the atmosphere in some other way.

---

As I alluded to in another post, it's a pipeline effect. Some crops and some farming methods tie up carbon better and longer than others. A tree will tie up carbon longer than grass. Reduced or no-till will tie up carbon longer than conventional (clean field) tillage.

If I plant wheat, harvest the grain, and burn the stubble, all the carbon in the stubble goes into the atmosphere. If I no-till, some goes into the soil, some into the air, but it takes 2 years, not 2 hours.

And a lot of the carbon goes into the part that's harvested. So the carbon in the wheat seed, goes into a person or animal, and a lot of the carbon is expelled into belches and farts, but a lot goes into the body and stays there. Again, it absorbs over a growing season, returns to the atmosphere over a longer time period.

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

You dont understand what he's saying?

He's saying, we'll have land banks, that will pay you. And because of these land banks, the crops will absorb carbon, which is part of the deal, and you get paid. So that's how he'll help reduce regulations for farmers.

Understand now?

---

Damn, glad you explained it so much better!

Its like his Ag Policy advisor worked in the Ukraine in the 1930s.

---

Yeah, what could go wrong?

Even China is getting away from this type of economy.

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

Its like his Ag Policy advisor worked in the Ukraine in the 1930s.

---

Trofim Lysenko is his advisor.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Cassius said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Cassius said:

---

As far as growing crops, that doesn't remove carbon. Crops are harvested.

---

What?
Plants use photosynthesis that removes CO2.

---

Then they are harvested. CO2 is released back into the atmosphere in some other way.

---

As I alluded to in another post, it's a pipeline effect. Some crops and some farming methods tie up carbon better and longer than others. A tree will tie up carbon longer than grass. Reduced or no-till will tie up carbon longer than conventional (clean field) tillage.

If I plant wheat, harvest the grain, and burn the stubble, all the carbon in the stubble goes into the atmosphere. If I no-till, some goes into the soil, some into the air, but it takes 2 years, not 2 hours.

And a lot of the carbon goes into the part that's harvested. So the carbon in the wheat seed, goes into a person or animal, and a lot of the carbon is expelled into belches and farts, but a lot goes into the body and stays there. Again, it absorbs over a growing season, returns to the atmosphere over a longer time period.

---

Thanks CanyonAg77

Titan:

If Joe had all his faculties that is exactly what we would have, Joe thinks the Obama administration was the golden age. But without his faculties there is no telling who will be in charge: Pelosi, Schumer, the DNC, Bernie Sanders, AOC, who the hell knows? But probably Soros.

Troutslime said:

---

I despise the man, but it's to the point of cruelty with him. I can't believe anyone voting for him gives two ****s about fellow citizens or the future of this nation.

---

Many do not. They wouldn't be so high on pushing any form of collectivism and anti-West if so.

Literally talking ****