Save Farmers Save Agriculture Quotes

Soil is not just a substance, soil is the soul.

the planned destruction of Iraq’s agriculture is not widely known. Modern Iraq is part of the ‘fertile crescent’ of Mesopotamia where man first domesticated wheat between 8,000 and 13,000 years ago, and home to several thousand varieties of local wheat. As soon as the US took over Iraq, it became clear its interests were not limited to oil. In 2004, Paul Bremer, the then military head of the Provisional Authority imposed as many as a hundred laws which made short work of Iraq’s sovereignty. The most crippling for the people and the economy of Iraq was Order 81 which deals, among other things, with plant varieties and patents. The goal was brutally clear-cut and sweeping — to wipe out Iraq’s traditional, sustainable agriculture and replace it with oil-chemical-genetically-modified-seed-based industrial agriculture. There was no public or parliamentary debate for the conquered people who never sought war. The conquerors made unilateral changes in Iraq’s 1970 patent law: henceforth, plant forms could be patented — which was never allowed before — while genetically-modified organisms were to be introduced. Farmers were strictly banned from saving their own seeds: this, in a country where, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, 97 per cent of Iraqi farmers planted only their own saved seeds. With a single stroke of the pen, Iraq’s agriculture was axed, while Order 81 facilitated the introduction and domination of imported, high-priced corporate seeds, mainly from the US — which neither reproduce, nor give yields without their prescribed chemical fertiliser and pesticide inputs. It meant that the majority of farmers who had never spent money on seed and inputs that came free from nature, would henceforth have to heavily invest in corporate inputs and equipment — or go into debt to obtain them, or accept lowered profits, or give up farming altogether.

Switching from beef to “white meat” such as pork or chicken could cut health costs by $1 trillion a year, significantly lower GHG emissions, and greatly reduce the pressure to find new agricultural land.13 Plant-based food is now a $4.5 billion business14 and could be an $85 billion industry by 2030.15 Wheat farmers in the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom reap more than four times the harvest from the same area of land as farmers in Russia, Spain, and Romania.16 Yields in much of Africa are even lower. Quadrupling food production is probably an unrealistic goal, but a number of pilot projects suggest that doubling yields—even in the face of climate stress—is eminently possible.17 About a third of all the food that is produced globally is lost—to pests or spoilage in the supply chain or as consumer waste. Preventing just a quarter of this loss could feed nearly a billion people a year, save nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, and significantly reduce global GHG emissions.18

Today, the most numerous heirs of the farmers of Lexington and Concord are the little groups scattered all over the country whose names begin with ‘Save’: Save Our Land, Save the Valley, Save Our Mountains, Save Our Streams, Save Our Farmland. As so often before, these are designated victims – people without official sanction, often without official friends, who are struggling to preserve their places, their values and their lives as they know them and prefer to live them against the agencies of their own government which are using their own tax moneys against them.

Between 1978 and 1983, the entire basis of the agricultural economy was changed by the adoption of the “household responsibility system.” The origins of this shift lay in a village in Anhui province, where a group of farmers got together in secret and signed an agreement to dissolve their collective and divide up their farmland into individual plots. This innovation rapidly spread, and the province’s party secretary, Wan Li, realized he was facing a powerful popular revolt against an immiserating system. Rather than crush it, he decided to promote this land-to-the-tiller reform. The party secretary of Sichuan province, Zhao Ziyang, made a similar decision. At the national level, the December 1978 party plenum that launched the reform era raised agricultural prices and gave a blessing to rural collectives experimenting with different ways of management, but it still condemned private farming. By 1980, however, Zhao Ziyang had become premier and Wan Li was vice premier in charge of agriculture policy. Together they rammed through a national policy to disband the communes and return to family farming. By the end of 1982 virtually all agricultural collectives were gone, and family farmers had been assigned rights to cultivate individual plots of land. The effect on agricultural output and farm incomes was spectacular. By 1984 grain output was over 400 million tons, a third higher than it had been just six years before; production of oilseeds and cotton sustained annual growth rates of 15 percent; and meat production was growing by 10 percent a year. Rural per capita income more than doubled between 1979 and 1984. Per capita cash savings by rural families rose from essentially zero in 1979 to 300 renminbi (Rmb) by 1989. Rapid gains in agricultural output and incomes continued throughout the 1980s, as farmers continued to diversify their crops and apply new technologies that increased yields. Use of chemical fertilizer, which had risen gradually in the 1970s, tripled between 1978 and 1990. So did the use of farm machinery, notably pumps, small tractors, and food processing equipment.3

Consider that farmers are sued when genetically manipulated seeds they don’t even want sprout on their soil. (The pretext: This is “patent infringement” and thus the company is owed royalties. No matter that the designer seeds have contaminated the crop.) Or the draconian contracts in which farmers must promise not to save seeds, which has been a fundamental right of growers since the advent of agriculture.

Herbicide use has remained steady since 1980, and use of insecticides has fallen 77 percent since 1970, all while average pesticide toxicity has fallen dramatically.5 Agriculture is using half as much labor and 16 percent less land than in 1970 even though farmers are producing much more food.6

Examples of farmers who practice this type of agriculture can be found in the inspiring book Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life by David Montgomery.3

New Deal legislation undoubtedly saved thousands of lives and prevented destitution for millions. New labor laws led to a flourishing of unions and built a strong white middle class. The Social Security Act of 1935 established the principle of cash payments in cases of unemployment, old age, or loss of a family breadwinner, and it did so as a matter of right, not on the basis of individual moral character. But the New Deal also created racial, gender, and class divisions that continue to produce inequities in our society today. Roosevelt’s administration capitulated to white supremacy in ways that still bear bitter fruit. The Civilian Conservation Corps capped Black participation in federally supported work relief at 10 percent of available jobs, though African Americans experienced 80 percent unemployment in northern cities. The National Housing Act of 1934 redoubled the burden on Black neighborhoods by promoting residential segregation and encouraging mortgage redlining. The Wagner Act granted workers the right to organize, but allowed segregated trade unions. Most importantly, in response to threats that southern states would not support the Social Security Act, both agricultural and domestic workers were explicitly excluded from its employment protections. The “southern compromise” left the great majority of African American workers—and a not-insignificant number of poor white tenant farmers, sharecroppers, and domestics—with no minimum wage, unemployment protection, old-age insurance, or right to collective bargaining.

A ‘rancher’ on Facebook convinced me to invest my crop earnings in a fake agri-crypto platform. It started when this person, claiming to be a rancher, messaged me out of the blue. He told me about a new agricultural cryptocurrency that supposedly allowed farmers like me to multiply our income by investing in digital tokens linked to crops and farm products. The platform looked convincing, with testimonials from other supposed users and documents that seemed official. After several conversations and reassurances, I decided to trust him and invested $180,000 USDC, hoping to grow my savings beyond what traditional farming could offer. At first, everything seemed fine, but soon after, the website became unresponsive, and my funds were locked inside the platform. I tried repeatedly to contact their support team, but my messages went unanswered or received generic replies. It quickly became clear that I had been scammed. I felt helpless and overwhelmed, unsure if I would ever see my money again. I started searching online for help and came across SPARTAN TECH GROUP RETRIEVAL. Their website promised to assist people who lost cryptocurrency in scams like mine. I decided to reach out, and their team responded quickly. They listened carefully to my story and assured me they would do everything possible to recover my funds. For four long days, SPARTAN TECH GROUP RETRIEVAL worked nonstop. They tracked the flow of my USDC on the blockchain, identified where the funds were stuck, and communicated with different intermediaries who had control over the assets. Their persistence and thorough approach impressed me. Finally, thanks to their efforts, they were able to recover all of my lost cryptocurrency. I’m incredibly grateful to SPARTAN TECH GROUP RETRIEVAL for their dedication and support during this stressful time. Without their help, I would have lost everything. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, I highly recommend contacting SPARTAN TECH GROUP RETRIEVAL. They really know how to get your cryptocurrency back. DM THEM IN THE INFO BELOW Email: spartan tech (@) cyber services. c o m OR support(@) spartan tech group retrieval. o r g Website: h t t p s : / / spartan tech group retrieval . o r g WhatsApp: + 1 ( 9 7 1 ) 4 8 7 - 3 5 3 8 Telegram: + 1 ( 5 8 1 ) 2 8 6 - 8 0 9 2

A ‘rancher’ on Facebook convinced me to invest my crop earnings in a fake Agri-crypto platform. It started when this person, claiming to be a rancher, messaged me out of the blue. He told me about a new agricultural cryptocurrency that supposedly allowed farmers like me to multiply our income by investing in digital tokens linked to crops and farm products. The platform looked convincing, with testimonials from other supposed users and documents that seemed official. After several conversations and reassurances, I decided to trust him and invested $180,000 USDC, hoping to grow my savings beyond what traditional farming could offer. At first, everything seemed fine, but soon after, the website became unresponsive, and my funds were locked inside the platform. I tried repeatedly to contact their support team, but my messages went unanswered or received generic replies. It quickly became clear that I had been scammed. I felt helpless and overwhelmed, unsure if I would ever see my money again. I started searching online for help and came across RAPID DIGITAL RECOVERY. Their website promised to assist people who lost cryptocurrency in scams like mine. I decided to reach out, and their team responded quickly. They listened carefully to my story and assured me they would do everything possible to recover my funds. For four long days, RAPID DIGITAL RECOVERY worked nonstop. They tracked the flow of my USDC on the blockchain, identified where the funds were stuck, and communicated with different intermediaries who had control over the assets. Their persistence and thorough approach impressed me. Finally, thanks to their efforts, they were able to recover all of my lost cryptocurrency. I’m incredibly grateful to RAPID DIGITAL RECOVERY for their dedication and support during this stressful time. Without their help, I would have lost everything. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, I highly recommend contacting RAPID DIGITAL RECOVERY. They really know how to get your cryptocurrency back. REACH OUT TO THEM VIA: WhatSapp: +1 4 1 4 8 0 7 1 4 8 5 Email: rapid digital recovery (@) execs. com Telegram: https: // t. me/ Rapid digital recovery519

If you were looking for whom to make a hero, look in the direction where there are farmers, for they are the ones who have conspired with nature to save humanity.

If you're thinking of purchasing a Massey Ferguson 241 DI in 2025, you're on the right path. It's one of the most reliable 42 HP tractors in India—famous for its long lifespan, immense power and good fuel efficiency. And the good news? With government subsidy schemes, you can bring down the overall massey ferguson 241 di price by a considerable margin. To discover prices, finance deals and new subsidy deals simply log on to KhetiGaadi.com, where experts guide you through everything from tractor selection to subsidy documentation. Massey Ferguson 241 DI: A Brief Overview The massey ferguson 241 di features a 3-cylinder engine 1700 kg lifting capacity and great fuel efficiency. It's ideal for ploughing, sowing and haulage operations on small to medium-sized farms. The massey ferguson 241 price (ex-showroom) is currently between ₹6.70 and ₹7.30 lakhs and the massey ferguson 241 on road price can go up to ₹7.60 lakhs depending on your location. How Government Subsidies Help In 2025, different state and central government schemes assist in reducing the price of the 241 di massey ferguson: • PM Kisan Tractor Yojana • SMAM (Sub-Mission on Agricultural Mechanization) • State-specific schemes such as Krishi Yantra Yojana Depending on your category (general, SC/ST, women, small/marginal farmer), you can receive 20% to 50% subsidy. Therefore, a ₹7.20 lakhs tractor may cost you as little as ₹4.30 lakhs after subsidy—saving you almost ₹3 lakhs. How to Apply for a Subsidy 1. Visit your state's agriculture office or apply online via the state agriculture portal. 2. Provide Aadhaar, land records and bank passbook. 3. Specify Massey Ferguson 241 DI as your choice model. 4. Upon approval, the subsidy is provided either in direct form as a discount or added to your account. Or, let Kheti Gaadi take the trouble—they prepare your documents, compare prices and apply for the scheme. Buy Online via Kheti Gaadi At Khetigaadi.com, you can: • tick current massey ferguson 241 on road price • avail EMI and finance application • Check current subsidy schemes • book the tractor online with expert help Kheti Gaadi is India's first online marketplace for buying tractors smart. Conclusion Buying the massey ferguson 241 di under a government subsidy in 2025 is a smart investment. With the right scheme, you’ll save a big chunk of money and get a high-performance tractor for less. For complete help on price, subsidy and finance, trust Kheti Gaadi—India’s no.1 tractor solution platform.