2 ms·
Whether you have one hundred hectares or a million hectares, your animal density should be the same. This isn't a case of more food on less land. The problem i
by supermatt 8y ago
Whether you have one hundred hectares or a million hectares, your animal density should be the same.
This isn't a case of more food on less land. The problem is that those with "more" are receiving substantial subsidies to sustain a business that would otherwise lose money. They are then able to invest that money into buying more land to get more animals and larger subsidies, resulting in overproduction and reduced margins, forcing the smaller farms out of the market.
Even if you don't drink milk, if you pay your taxes, you are paying for it.
Like I said, it's disgusting.
- honkycat 8y agoYES. THIS. I always wonder why this argument is not more popular. The animal welfare argument IS valid but is not going to land with a lot of people. Pointing out these industries are getting a free ride, however... It's the subsidies that tick me off. We should be a civilization of mostly plant-eaters with the occasional dairy and meat meal. Instead, we are a civilization of carnivores because we subsidize the meat industrial complex so heavily. We should internalize the cost of pollution these industries create, not give them free money to continue destroying the planet.