3 ms·
>Cattle grazing, thought it isn’t an ecological disaster like dam building, is quite different than leaving the land untouched. Leaving the land untouched is e
by pathseeker 8y ago
>Cattle grazing, thought it isn’t an ecological disaster like dam building, is quite different than leaving the land untouched.
Leaving the land untouched is even more 'ecologically privileged' than using it to make expensive food.
>Plus, a good portion of the country’s good farmland is diverted to growing feed for those animals.
Growing feed (hay/grass) is much easier than growing things like almonds. If a farmer could grow something humans would pay for directly rather than hay, they would.
- jdietrich 8y agoGiven the colossal and uneven levels of subsidies in US agriculture, I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions about what the market is willing to bear.
- Fjolsvith 8y agoThe farmers here in Kansas are crying because the subsidies are being cut right and left. It's going to shake up the agricultural market big time. Plus, all the grain storage facilities are still mostly full from last year and we're looking towards another bumper crop from all the rainfall this year.
- adventured 8y agoUS agriculture subsidies are not colossal in fact. They're about $20-$25 billion per year. They shouldn't exist at all ideally, however given the immense size of the US agriculture market, and how critical it is to keeping hundreds of millions of people alive, it's hardly a concerning sum. By contrast, EU farm subsidies in a smaller economy are three times that size. If the US farm subsidies are colossal, I'm not sure what you'd call 3x colossal.
- AngryData 8y agoGrowing alfalfa has the added benefit of fertilizing the soil. Many farmers are willing to accept a small loss on hay production because it means less fossil-fuel derived fertilizer they need to buy for next year's cash crops and higher yields on those cash crops.