To each his own. I can't comment on rationale for decisions other than my own. But my primary interest in social media is in learning useful information.
And for applied agriculture, Twitter/X is still the best IMHO.
I still need Bluesky, however, so I can follow you. 😊
LinkedIn is useful too.

There's ample garbage on both X and Bluesky. I counter by choosing carefully who to follow. A smaller List helps too.
The above stated, X is a much better source of practical information on farm techology. I don't see that changing soon. I follow Bluesky too, mainly for more academic perspectives.

If the agricultural community, at least commercially oriented agriculture, is mostly on X, why would you want to leave it? There is no good reason why you can't be on both X and Bluesky.

Well, they are sure not leaving much in the field, though I am not really sure how that photo enhances the story.

This great column from France, details how EU attitudes to ag technology have really harmed crop productivity, at least with corn/maize in that country. wikiagri.fr/articles/fil...

Your comment may be more relevant to Europe. There is lots of research on GM technology, at least for principal crops, in the Americas, though it's largely in the private sector (where the need for quick research papers is far less significant).

I agree with this thread completely, and get frustrated when "good" scientists, including in agriculture, say that they are collecting data to show that something is true.
Worse is when they persist in claiming something remains true when their experimental data show the reverse.

A major farm supply chain shut down recently in Canada and there aren't good alternatives yet nearby. Surprisingly, I can get what I need usually, quickly, and at a reasonable price, from Amazon on-line.
One problem is that returns are more complicated with Amazon than with a local retail store.

Too often, the only place I can find what I am looking for - even after checking in several retail outlets in a nearby city - is on Amazon. But I do recognize that virtually all of their "product ratings" are essentially BS.

Of note: "Of particular importance, the successful candidate will have a demonstrated understanding of the strength that is brought to science through diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility."

There is some planting of dry beans after 1st-cut forages here too. Beans are commonly not planted in Ontario until early June, and harvested in early-to-mid September. Almost no no-till beans here; most growers inter-row cultivate to help with weed control.

Here's an article about N fertility dynamics and research in Canadian beans. When I grew them, I usually applied about 70-80 kg/ha of N as urea at planting time.
manitobapulse.ca/2023/08/dry-...

Our beans are Phaseolus vulgaris, used for baked beans and foods like that. Very different from Vicia faba that is scarely grown in Eastern Canada.
I grew these beans for 35 yrs - good for farm finances and for planting winter wheat after September bean harvest. Poor N fixers. Poor for soil quality.

It's interesting how the "experts" seem to be divided into two camps. Those who hate ruminant livestock because of methane and lower feed efficiencies. And the soil regenerative gang who insist on the presence of livestock/forages/manure.
And not much communication, it seems, between the two.

Not much N fixation with beans. Not a lot of root DM either, and it breaks down quickly.
Acidity is not notable factor.
Soybeans are much better for N fixation but also poor for SOC. Ontario soils have declined in SOC with more soybean acreage in recent years and fewer cattle (perennial forages).

I grew beans for decades. They were exceptionally poor for soil quality. Even worse than soybeans.
Perennial forages are the best, of course, but they require ruminants for utilization.
There are no simple answers, only trade-offs.