25-10-2022, 04:52 PM
(25-10-2022, 12:55 PM)C_T_Russell Wrote:If you are interpretting what I've written earlier being promotion of intensive farming in regard to greenhouse emissions then your problem is one of comprehension of what you're reading. That's not a risky weakness to have if you're assimilating information from CT online content. Far too easy to get the wrong end of the stick, which may explain a few things.(23-10-2022, 01:03 PM)harm_less Wrote: Struggling to follow your logic there chap. We are already farming intensively (e.g. imported feed, undercover feed out facilities, break feeding herds of 100s+) so the degredation to our environment is a result. Also are you saying that well treated animals result in inferior produce? Why do you think then that organic products command such a premium in price, to markets that far outstrip our ability to supply them?Thats the whole point, you said earlier that intensive farming is a solution to greenhouse emissions.
Why would we want to introduce more undercover farming indoors?
Well treated animals that are permitted to roam free on grass is better for animal welfare and also will give a better quality product.
Our govt doesnt give a shit, or else they would have banned palm kernel imports that are used on stock feed, thats a by-product of something that contributes to de-forestation.
At the other end of the scale, organic products are unaffordable for many and if the greens had their way, we would see all farmers faced to use permaculture methods for farming which would be so cost prohibitive.
The other solution is to force the population into eating insects which we are sadly seeing much more of this promoted as a "solution" to climate change.