On a very serious note, it is my opinion that grazing stock should graze as was intended.
However this then doesn't allow for the consumers who want all their "rights to a choice" with absolutely no RESPONSIBILITY to be satisfied as prices will be high and the shelves/freezers won't be full with as much of a choice.
People are the problem, as usual.
& on a not so serious note, if we were to resort to beans, damn the corn stuffed cattle wouldn't be able to compete with us on the methane issues!
PS. I don't judge, just state it as I see it (and back it up if need be, that is, if the logic doesn't get through without a diagram or dot to dot!)
Intended by whom? Cattle never evolved to graze the Amazon forest. They are not that efficient at turning plants into meat, but then we cannot eat all they can. Apparently feeding them on seaweed massively reduces their methane emissions, but why would farmers bother when grass is 'free'.
We have got used to very cheap food that we never see being produced. Relatively few people have to work all day to produce the food they need these days.
Business cares about profit regardless of the planetary cost. Consumers can go for more sustainable options, but they will generally be more expensive and for many that is not an option.
Cheap food has a price.
Oh and I can fart as well as anyone ;)
Fully agree, again the consumers who want it all, for next to nothing would dictate what the producers do and yes, we humans would probably destroy what little of the land can be destroyed if stuffing cattle with who know what all not instead of letting them live of natures intended source of food (= grass) was to be banned!
Demand is what drives it!
Delete the demand, by introducing eco-friendly means of supplying food, by ensuring that the lands and rivers destroyed by this "totally idiotic demand driven industrial food supply" (quote me on that when eve you like).
It all comes down to responsibility, at all levels. Really, that is all it boils down to.
People want "rights", sure, then there are responsibilities to those "rights"!
Yet what they fail to realize is that what they call "rights" are in fact = choices and not in any way "rights".
Very personal choices and in no way "rights".
Rights to a choice? YES.
With all the responsibilities that come with those choices.
But then again, what do I know. I'm just rambling here and definitely falling on the popularity scales as insisting upon responsibility and telling it as it is about the fact that anything we want isn't necessarily a right in itself just because we "want" it to be, you know.
So I better quit whilst I'm way behind.
Cheers and as long as us Heinz munching creatures are not blaming ourselves, feel free to let one rip whenever and whereever possible. Especially when in an elevator!