Connect with us

Agriculture

The Enemies of Food Freedom

Published

13 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

By TRACY THURMAN  

In every war, there is necessarily an enemy force, and the war on our food supply is no exception.

My previous article addressed the ongoing attacks on farmers across the globe. In today’s article, we will look at some of the culprits behind this agenda. For anyone who delved into the entities behind the tyrannical Covid policies, many names on the list below will seem quite familiar.

Bayer/Monsanto

Bayer merged with Monsanto in 2018, combining the companies responsible for Agent Orange and pioneering chemical warfare. In 1999, Monsanto’s CEO Robert Shapiro bragged that the company planned to control “three of the largest industries in the world—agriculture, food, and health—that now operate as separate businesses. But there are a set of changes that will lead to their integration.” Today these chemical manufacturers control a huge percentage of the world’s food supply.

Cargill and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Cargill is a World Economic Forum partner and the largest private company in the United States. This behemoth monopolizes unimaginably vast swaths of the global food industry, including meat processing in the United States. Cargill’s business practices, along with bigger-is-better policies enforced by their cronies at the United States Department of Agriculture, have led to the closures of many local abattoirs which forced farmers to depend on a few corporate mega-slaughterhouses. This leaves farmers waiting 14 months or longer for butchering slots, for which they often must transport their animals hundreds of miles—indeed, farmers and ranchers must book processing dates up to a year before the animal is even born. The high fees charged by Cargill’s slaughterhouses contribute to the skyrocketing price of meat—all while the farmers themselves are barely paid enough to cover the cost of raising the livestock. The USDA, meanwhile, makes sure their policies prevent farmers from processing meat themselves on their own farms.

Wellcome Trust

The Wellcome Trust, the former owner of Glaxo before it merged with SmithKline, played a major role in Britain’s Covid debacle and is unapologetic about its goal of reducing your food sovereignty. Wellcome Trust funds Livestock, Environment and People (LEAP), an organization dedicated to developing and testing behavioral modifications to coerce the public into removing meat and dairy from their diets. LEAP’s co-director Susan Jeffs bemoans that motivating people with environmental impact labels on their foods does not seem to work: “People are already settled into very established habits” and suggests instead altering what the industry provides, thereby forcing consumer choice. Wellcome Trust researchers recommend “availability interventions” that “rely less on individual agency” to reduce access to animal food products. Researcher Rachel Pechey opines that “meat taxes show a promising evidence for effectiveness but have been less acceptable in survey work…we don’t want to just go for the most acceptable [solutions].”

The World Health Organization

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO’s Director-General, would like you to believe that food production is responsible for almost one-third of the global burden of disease. He calls for transforming the global food system toward plant-based foods, reducing meat and dairy in our intake, and enforcing policies to save the climate through restricting diet. A WHO 2022 report concluded that “considerable evidence supports shifting populations towards healthful plant-based diets that reduce or eliminate intake of animal products.”

World Economic Forum

You are likely familiar with the World Economic Forum and their Great Reset agenda. Visit their webpage and treat yourself to such morsels as 5 reasons why eating insects could reduce climate changewhy we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems, and why we might be eating insects soon. Suffice it to say that their plans for your dietary future are clear.

EAT Forum, the Lancet, and their Big Tech and Big Chemical Partners

The EAT Forum is “dedicated to transforming our global food system through sound science, impatient disruption and novel partnerships.” It was co-founded by the aforementioned Wellcome Trust, the Strawberry Foundation, and the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Their FRESH initiative—Food Reform for Sustainability and Health—aims to transform the global food system. Partners in the FRESH initiative include Google, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever, Pepsico, and many chemical processors such as BASF, Bayer, and DuPont—a rather odd cast of characters for developing a healthy and sustainable dietary plan. EAT’s Shifting Urban Diets Initiative advocates for cities to adopt the Lancet-endorsed Planetary Health Diet, in which plant-based proteins are set to replace meat and dairy. Red meat is limited to 30 calories per day. A report drafted by EAT found that the transformation they want to foist upon our diets is “unlikely to be successful if left up to the individual,” and “require(s) reframing at the systemic level with hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures.”

The Rockefeller Foundation

Members of the Rockefeller family may carry more blame than anyone else in history for turning agriculture away from independent family farms towards corporate conglomerates.

In 1947, Nelson Rockefeller founded the International Basic Economy Corporation to modernize and corporatize agriculture in South America, particularly in Brazil and Venezuela. IBEC transformed farming to depend on expensive machinery and inputs that priced subsistence peasant farmers out of viability. The American International Association for Economic and Social Development (AIA), a Rockefeller-funded philanthropic organization, helped build the market through which IBEC could enrich its owners. While IBEC’s promotional literature claimed that the company was generously assisting the Third World by providing necessary consumer products while turning a profit, on closer examination, it was simply a business enterprise built on the Rockefellers’ old Standard Oil model, in which smaller competitors are forced out using monopolistic practices before prices are raised.

This tactic was taken to a whole new level with the so-called Green Revolution, first in Mexico in the 1940s, then in the Philippines and India in the 1960s, as well as in the United States. Traditional farming practices such as the use of manure as fertilizer for heirloom native crops were replaced with a model of mechanized chemical farming, using Rockefeller-funded new seed varieties which had been developed to require petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce significantly increased crop yields compared to the traditional crops grown by peasant farmers in these countries.

It is worth noting that the Rockefellers, as oil oligarchs, stood to profit handsomely from the petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides that this new method demanded. The crops grown were almost all cereal crops like rice and replaced more nutrient-dense, traditional crops like millet. India experienced an increase in food but a decrease in nutrition: with more empty calories but fewer fruits, vegetables, and animal proteins, micronutrients disappeared from the diet. Anemia, blindness, fertility problems, low birth weight, and immune impairment increased.

While the Green Revolution was hailed as the solution to world hunger and poverty, it also poisoned local water supplies, depleted the soil, and left farmers drowning in debt as they could no longer independently produce the fertilizer and seeds they needed. Informed readers can see how the later Monsanto GMO Roundup-Ready seed model followed this playbook established by the Rockefellers.

In 2006, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill Gates, and others pushed the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, and they again followed this proven playbook. Since AGRA’s launch, African biodiversity has been lost, and the number of severely undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa has increased by nearly 50 percent, even by the UN’s own reports. Just as in India, farmers are being tricked into abandoning nutrient-dense, drought-resistant crops like heirloom millet in exchange for the empty calories of GMO corn. Hundreds of African organizations have demanded that this neocolonial project end, leaving the future of African agriculture in the hands of the native farmers who know the land best.

Now the Rockefeller Foundation has set its sights on the US food system with its Reset the Table agenda, handily launched in 2020 just weeks after the Great Reset was announced. Under rosy language calling for inclusivity and equity, the report states that “success will require numerous changes to policies, practices, and norms.” This includes a major focus on data collection and objectives that align closely with the One Health Agenda—more on that in a future article.

Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation

Bill Gates has followed the Rockefeller playbook for fumigating his fortune and transforming his image—while building more wealth—through the cynical ploy of philanthrocapitalism.

His fingers are deep in every public health pie, and his influence is nearly equal in the food wars. Besides financing the development of fake meats, he is behind the aforementioned AGRA program, is investing in geoengineering programs to dim the sun, and as of January 2021, owned 242,000 acres of prime US farmland, making him the largest private owner of farmland in the US. It is disconcerting to think that a man who believes we should phase out real meat controls so much of the method of production.

USAID and BIFAD

Another organization pushing you to eat bugs is USAID. This may surprise some of you who think of USAID as an organization dedicated to helping third-world countries, rather than as a longtime Trojan horse for CIA operations. (Skeptical of that claim? Go down the rabbit hole here and here and here and here.) Their Board for International Food and Agricultural Development, known as BIFAD, released a report titled “Systemic Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation.” This report calls for a complete transformation of the food supply and global agriculture. They propose to do this through ESG scores, carbon tracking, and eating insects.

So how do these organizations manage to push their agenda on the global population? We will cover that in a future article.

Author

Tracy Thurman is an advocate for regenerative farming, food sovereignty, decentralized food systems, and medical freedom. She works with the Barnes Law Firm’s public interest division to safeguard the right to purchase food directly from farmers without government interference.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

The Role of Satellite Imagery in Developing VRA Prescription Maps

Published on

Since its appearance in the 1980s, precision agriculture has revolutionized farming, offering innovative solutions to age-old challenges. One of those is Variable rate technology (VRT), which plays a key role in improving efficiency and sustainability in today’s farming methods.

By applying inputs like fertilizers and water in different quantities across the field, VRT helps optimize crop yields and reduce costs. This technology relies on data collection and analysis to create detailed VRA prescription maps, allowing for customized input applications. 

With the right equipment and technology, VRT can significantly improve agricultural productivity.  Today’s advanced tractors, equipped with built-in terminals and specialized software integrated with a precision agriculture platform, use prescription maps to accurately apply variable rates of water or chemicals based on GPS location and management zones.

Variable Rate Technology In Precision Agriculture

Precision agriculture is a game-changer, moving far beyond traditional farming methods. Often called satellite farming, this approach focuses on crop condition monitoring, measuring, and responding to variability within fields. One of its standout innovations is variable rate application (VRA), which has caught the attention of farmers worldwide for its immense potential.

Why is VRA so important? It goes beyond simply fertilizing, seeding, and applying pesticides. It’s about utilizing technology to apply various expendable materials on and beneath the field automatically. 

Farm management software simplifies contemporary farming by combining data and technology to improve farming efficiency, sustainability, and profitability. Precision agriculture platforms consolidate operations, crop health monitoring through satellite imagery, and offer real-time suggestions, enabling farmers to make informed decisions for the best use of resources (through VRA) and increased productivity.

Variable rate application offers numerous advantages for modern agriculture:

  1. VR fertilizer enhances farming efficiency.

Adjusting rates based on soil health and plant needs helps save resources and increase yields. Research shows this method can lead to higher net income and healthier soil compared to using uniform rates: “The net incomes of VR management zone were 15.5–449.61 USD ha−1 higher than that of traditional spatially uniform rate fertilization.”

  1. VR irrigation saves water, time, and fuel while reducing machinery wear.

Applying the correct amount of water to different parts of the field based on soil moisture levels and crop requirements reduces wear and tear on irrigation equipment compared to uniform irrigation.

Studies claim: “Variable rate irrigation (VRI) can increase water use efficiency and productivity by applying water based on site‐specific needs.”

  1. VR seeding increases crop yield by adjusting seeding rates based on soil fertility.

VR seeding adjusts seeding rates based on soil fertility and other factors to optimize plant populations and yields. It is commonly used alongside variable rate fertilization as part of a comprehensive precision agriculture strategy. 

Findings show that: “The application of VRS to the seeding of various crops shows positive agro-economic trends, additional yields, and higher economic returns.”

  1. VR pesticide reduces environmental pollution and improves pesticide efficiency.

VRT helps farmers target pests more accurately and use less pesticide. 

Studies have found that “VR management zone reduced the use of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) fertilizers by 22.90–43.95%, 59.11–100%, and 8.21–100%, respectively, and it also increased the use efficiency of N, P, and K by 12.27–28.71, 89.64–176.85, and 5.48–266.89 kg/kg, respectively, without yield loss.”

This demonstrates the ability of variable rate technologies to improve pesticide effectiveness and reduce environmental pollution in agriculture.

Using Various Technological Means For Informed Decisions

Applying different technological tools is essential for implementing variable rate technology in agriculture. This includes smart machinery, fertilizers, seeders, soil sensors, geographic information system (also called GIS), and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) applications for field mapping. Additionally, having supporting infrastructure, which helps manage and analyze info from different sources, is crucial for successful implementation.

Understanding the location, timing, and methods for seeding, fertilizing, and harvesting is key in remote crop monitoring and precision agriculture, where data plays a vital role in managing resources effectively.

This information is taken from a wide variety of data sources.

  • Sensors. Moisture, soil nutrients, compaction, weather stations (humidity, temperature, wind speed)
  • Drones and satellite photography. Field hyperspectral imaging.
  • GNSS. Event coordinates, also points and times for obtaining time-series data
  • Spatio-temporal data sources. Spatio-temporal specific data (trajectories of agricultural machinery, spatiotemporal points, event points, time-series information)
  • Maps. Field boundaries, soil type, surface levels)
  • AI solutions. Prediction of weather conditions, detection of plant diseases.

However, simply collecting raw data is not sufficient. It is necessary to process this information to extract valuable insights, make informed decisions, and enable automatic alerts and control signals for agricultural equipment. Thus, you must have the capability to:

  • Gather data;
  • Transform the data to extract valuable insights for precision farming gear;
  • Upload the data into agricultural equipment;
  • Retrieve real-time data from tractors, seeders, fertilizers, and other machinery.

By following these steps, farmers can make the most of modern technology, optimizing their farming practices and boosting efficiency.

Use Of Satellite Images In Building VRT Maps

Satellite crop monitoring imagery can be used to generate different kinds of VRA maps for various purposes. As nitrogen is one of the most critical elements plants need, building map for its proper application is a major task. 

Nitrogen fertilization maps play a crucial role in optimizing the application of water, nitrogen, and crop protection products. 

When creating a VRA map for nitrogen fertilizer, you can choose from various indices that provide valuable insights:

  • MSAVI is sensitive to uncovered soil and, therefore, is ideal for planning VR fertilizer application in the early stages of growth.

Example:  Early in the growing season, a corn farmer uses MSAVI to detect patches of uncovered soil in their field. This helps them apply fertilizer more accurately, ensuring that nutrient-rich areas receive the right amount of input and promoting uniform growth.

  • ReCI measures chlorophyll content in leaves, helping to identify field areas with faded and yellowed vegetation that may need additional fertilizer.

Example: A soybean grower notices using ReCI that certain sections of their field have yellowed leaves, indicating possible nutrient deficiencies. They apply additional fertilizer to these areas, restoring plant health and boosting overall yield.

  • NDVI indicates biomass accumulation zones and areas with low vegetation that might demand larger amounts of fertilizer.

Example:  A cotton producer uses NDVI to map out zones with varying levels of biomass across their field. They adjust their fertilizer application rates, applying more in areas with lower vegetation to support growth and maximize their harvest.

  • NDMI is well-suited for VR irrigation by identifying areas that are under water stress.

Example: During a hot summer, a vineyard uses NDMI to pinpoint areas suffering from water stress. They adjust their irrigation system to provide extra water where it’s needed, ensuring the vines remain healthy and productive.

    • NDRE helps identify stressed or dying vegetation in the middle to late stages of a season, aiding in effective fertilization strategies.
  • Example: During the season, a wheat farmer uses NDRE to identify patches of the field where the wheat plants are showing signs of nutrient stress or poor growth. By applying a mid-season nutrient boost specifically to these stressed areas, the farmer improves the overall health and yield potential of the wheat crop.

Field Productivity Maps

Field productivity maps can be created by analyzing satellite images to pinpoint areas with high or low crop yields. By using the NDVI index and advanced machine learning algorithms, different productivity zones can be identified.

Key applications of productivity maps include:

  • Potassium and phosphorus fertilization

Historical productivity zones data can help avoid excessive application in areas where these nutrients may have accumulated with time.

  • Variable rate planting

Farmers can apply different seed amounts in various productivity zones to either maximize yield or achieve uniform distribution across the field.

  • Land evaluation

Field productivity can be assessed before purchasing or renting land; it helps reduce risk and enhance profitability.

  • Targeted soil sampling

Soil sampling efforts can be focused on key areas indicated by productivity data, rather than relying on generic grid sampling.

As you see, variable rate application (VRA) is a cost-effective method that can save you 10% on planting and cultivation costs based on the characteristics of the soil. To fully benefit from VRA, it’s important to understand the technologies involved, such as sensors, GNSS, earth observation pictures from drones and satellites, and digital maps, which provide crucial data for analysis and implementation. We sincerely hope that you succeed in your farming endeavors with modern technology!

______________

Author Vasyl Cherlinka

Vasyl Cherlinka is a Doctor of Biosciences specializing in pedology (soil science), with 30 years of experience in the field. With a degree in agrochemistry, agronomy and soil science, Dr. Cherlinka has been advising on these issues private sector for many years.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Restoring balance between renewable energy, agricultural land and Alberta’s iconic viewscapes

Published on

Alberta is known around the world for many things – some of the most breathtaking and iconic scenery on earth, a world-class agricultural industry that puts high-quality food on tables across the globe and a rich history of responsible energy development. Alberta is a destination of choice for millions of visitors, newcomers and investors each year.

To ensure Alberta’s continued prosperity, it is imperative that future energy development is balanced with environmental stewardship, protecting Albertans’ ability to use and enjoy their property, and safeguarding agriculture for continued food security.

Alberta’s renewable energy sector has grown rapidly over the past decade, yet the rules to ensure responsible development have not kept up. As a result, municipalities, agricultural producers and landowners across the province raised concerns. Alberta’s government is fulfilling its duty to put Albertans first and restore the balance needed for long-term success by setting a clear path forward for responsible renewable energy development.

“We are doing the hard work necessary to ensure future generations can continue to enjoy the same Alberta that we know and love. By conserving our environment, agricultural lands and beautiful viewscapes, our government is protecting and balancing Alberta’s long-term economic prosperity. Our government will not apologize for putting Albertans ahead of corporate interests.”

Nathan Neudorf, Minister of Affordability and Utilities

Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation provide clarity for renewable energy developers on new and existing environmental protections.

These changes will create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. Albertans expect renewable power generation projects to be responsibly decommissioned and reclaimed for future generations. Alberta’s government stands firm in its commitment to protect landowners and taxpayers from being burdened with reclamation costs.

“We want to protect landowners, municipalities and taxpayers from unfairly having to cover the costs of renewable energy reclamations in the future. These changes will help make sure that all renewable energy projects provide reasonable security up front and that land will be reclaimed for future generations.”

Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

Alberta’s government committed to an ‘agriculture first’ approach for future development, safeguarding the province’s native grasslands, irrigable and productive lands. The protection of agricultural land is not only essential to food production, but to environmental stewardship and local wildlife protection.

The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation follows this ‘agriculture first’ approach and enhances protections for municipalities’ most productive lands, establishing the need to consider potential irrigability and whether projects can co-exist with agricultural operations. These changes are critical to minimizing the impacts of energy development on agricultural lands, protecting local ecosystems and global food security. With these new rules, Alberta’s farmers and ranchers can continue to produce the high-quality products that they are renowned for.

“Our province accounts for nearly 50 per cent of Canada’s cattle, produces the most potatoes in the country, and is the sugar beet capital of Canada. None of this would be possible without the valuable, productive farmland that these new rules protect. Understanding the need for an ‘agriculture first’ approach for energy development is as simple as no farms, no food.”

RJ Sigurdson, Minister of Agriculture and Irrigation

The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation also establishes specific guidelines to prevent projects from impacting pristine viewscapes. By establishing buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones, Alberta’s government is ensuring that industrial power projects the size of the Calgary Tower cannot be built in front of UNESCO World Heritage sites and other specified viewscapes, which will support the continued growth and success of Alberta’s tourism sector.

As Alberta’s population and economy grows, it is critical that the province has the additional power generation needed to meet increasing demand. Power generation must be developed in a balanced and responsible manner that promotes environmental stewardship, ensures the continued enjoyment of Alberta’s beautiful landscapes, and safeguards food security by protecting Alberta’s valuable agricultural lands. By encouraging the responsible development of additional power generation with these new regulations, Alberta’s government is listening to Albertans and ensuring the electricity grid is affordable, reliable and sustainable for generations to come.

Summary of Policy Changes

Following the policy direction established on February 28, 2024, Alberta’s government is now implementing the following policy and regulatory changes for renewable power development:

Agricultural lands

The new Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation takes an “agriculture first” approach.
• Renewable energy developments will no longer be permitted on Land Suitability Rating System (LSRS) Class 1 and 2 lands unless the proponent can demonstrate the ability for both crops and/or livestock to coexist with the renewable generation project,

• In municipalities without Class 1 or 2 lands, Class 3 lands will be treated as Class 1 and 2.

• An irrigability assessment must be conducted by proponents and considered by the AUC.

Reclamation security

Amendments to the Activities Designation Regulation and Conservation and Reclamation Regulation create consistent reclamation requirements across all forms of renewable energy operations, including a mandatory reclamation security requirement. There will be a mandatory security requirement for projects located on private lands.

• Developers will be responsible for reclamation costs via a mandatory security or bond.

• The reclamation security will either be provided directly to the province or may be negotiated with landowners if sufficient evidence is provided to the AUC.

Viewscapes

The Electric Energy Land Use and Visual Assessment Regulation ensures pristine viewscapes are conserved through the establishment of buffer zones and visual impact assessment zones as designated by the province.

• New wind projects will no longer be permitted within specified buffer zones.

o Other proposed electricity developments located within the buffer zones will be required to submit a
visual impact assessment before approval.

• All proposed electricity developments located within visual impact assessment zones will be required to submit a visual impact assessment before approval.

Municipalities

The AUC is implementing rule changes to:

• Automatically grant municipalities the right to participate in AUC hearings.

• Enable municipalities to be eligible to request cost recovery for participation and review.

• Allow municipalities to review rules related to municipal submission requirements while clarifying consultation requirements.

Continue Reading

Trending

X