[LatteLazy]

The question in this case is who is right? If the science is in, and you'll get a better crop/profit/outcome by doing X, it doesn't matter that your grandfathers grandfather has been doing it a different way since 1066. And that's basically what this comes down to.

If farming were a market and farmers were self reliant like other businesses it would be none of my business how they ran things (within the usual bounds of not eating babies etc). But it's not, farmers get the majority of their income from government subsidies. So they're free to fuck up actually farming because they get those either way. In that environment, you need someone to actually be responsible for output who is motivated to care.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

> The question in this case is who is right? If the science is in, and you'll get a better crop/profit/outcome by doing X, it doesn't matter that your grandfathers grandfather has been doing it a different way since 1066. And that's basically what this comes down to.

absolutely not what I said, if you want me to engage you seriously please read back over and avoid the strawman.

[LatteLazy]

To be clear, I am not straw manning your argument here. I am just asking: who is the expert?

You have assumed it's the farmer. But he just inherited (or rents) some land. And since the majority of his income comes from subsidies, there is no reason to assume he is competent.

On the other hand you have actual experts with real field trial results.

That's my point here.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

I get to decide if you're straw manning my point (you are).

These subsidies were created to affect the behavior of farmers and now there's bitching that farmers want to keep the behavior that most benefits them and people are doing it by trying to argue these farmers are just bad for doing exactly what people initially wanted them to do.

If you think farmers are using the same techniques they were back in 1066 then perhaps you're strawmanning more than just me.