Research center aims to improve grazing practices

As far as research centers go, this one is unique. At the UC Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, pastures are now called "living landscapes." The act of grazing has slowly shifted from its reputation as a detriment to the ecosystem to a tool that can bolster ecological values — water quality, wildlife habitat, carbon storage — that have risen to prominence in modern society, said director Jeremy James. With a recently donated 41-acre tract of land from Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the footprint of the U.C. Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center is that much bigger, adding to the research capacity of the organization to improve grazing practices. "Most agriculture research centers focus on agriculture production," James said. "Here we can look at how agriculture production can enhance things society values and needs." The new 41-acre tract now within the 6,000-acre footprint of the research center fits into that notion. There's a project that measures the amount of carbon released and stored by pasture land and how rainfall affects carbon sequestration. The long-term goal of that project is to frame how ranchers could participate in carbon cap-and-trade programs and add another revenue stream to their operations, James said...more

I've posted about landscape planning here.

In this case we have "living landscapes".  The set up is they are taking dead ones from the private sector and bringing them back to life.  Private sector = death, Oink sector = life!

Think I'm kidding about ObamaCare and gov't plans again?  No way.  Perhaps you remember this:

Landscape planners are concerned with the 'health' of the landscape, just as doctors are concerned with bodily health. This analogy can be taken further. Medical doctors advise both on the health of individuals and on matters of public health. When individuals take actions injurious to their own health this is regarded as a private matter. But if they take actions injurious to public health, these actions are properly regulated by law. The collective landscape is a public good which should be protected and enhanced by legislation and public administration. If, for example, mineral extraction has a damaging impact on the landscape, this is a proper field for intervention. Negative impacts on the landscape could include visual impacts, ecological impacts, hydrological impacts and recreational impacts. As well as protecting existing public goods, societies are responsible for the creation of new public goods. This can be done by positive landscape planning. There are, for example, many former mineral workings (e.g. the Norfolk Broads) which have become important public goods. Medical doctors are trained in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry etc. before becoming practitioners. Landscape doctors are trained in geomorphology, hydrology, ecology etc. before becoming practitioners in design and planning.

 I'm pretty sure those landscape doctors also take a course in proctology.

And, of course, livestock grazing can only be justified where it enhances "things society values and needs."   I have a sneaky suspicion some of those members of society actually value and need food.

Then there's those "revenue streams" for ranchers.  Let me assure you the primary revenue stream the feds care about is the one that goes from "living taxpayers" straight to their "living landscapes" and one of the biggest problems we face today is those streams have turned into rivers.