The fantasies that some fancy form of animal ag can "save the world" is such crap. Peel away all the atmospherics,
this article shows that even in the best-case scenario, "regenerative ag" is a money pit, produces super-expensive products that basically no one will buy, and still can't turn a profit. Oh, and the soil doesn't even store more carbon, let alone be a net carbon sink once you factor in the ranch's animals and operations.
The media's obsession with the fantasies of the 1% really doesn't matter in the big picture - basically, everyone just buys factory-farmed meat, regardless of what they say. But I think it is important to realize that even with all the money in the world, animal ag is still a net harm.
 |
| This is what they want you to think. |
1 comment:
Agreed. Plus, the article says:
"Its stocking rate of 17 acres per cow also means it’s using land much less efficiently than conventional U.S. ranches, which often aim for as little as two acres per cow."
And then goes on to mention the "hay he needs to buy to supplement the herd’s nutrition."
That means that it is greater than 17 acres, as additional land elsewhere is used to grow feed. That's even more inefficient, by who knows how much.
Post a Comment