Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
May I assume that 'intensification of farming' is the equivalent of CAFO (confined animal feeding operations) in the U.S.? That would explain the imported feedstocks - which is truly a terrible method of agriculture from an environmental standpoint. It's also terrible from the standpoint of domestic agriculture, because it's the opening wedge for 1) development of corporate control of your local agriculture by 'bottom-lining' the lower costs associated with their control of cheap-labor farming land in their client states (e.g., Brazil); and 2) the introduction of their chemical cocktails into your food chain. The lower costs, of course, become higher costs to the consumer when the local competition is essentially reduced to those farmers who don't mind gouging their neighbors in step with the corporations. The chemicals need no further explanation; the data is known.

The only benefit of CAFO that I can accept is that collection of the manure makes anaerobic digestion for production of a useful methane energy source relatively efficient. The rejoinder to that is that, given some central planning with respect to market and dietary needs of a population, sufficient grazing land can be allocated and sustained by systems of rotational grazing. Then the manure becomes a managed component of an essentially natural cycle.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue Mar 23rd, 2021 at 04:03:22 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series