RE: Future investors10 Apr 2021 12:26
Mate, that's a load of tosh.
'In this country we have got grass, and grass can be produced very easily on land where you cannot grow crops. And this land will produce some of the top quality proteins: beef and lamb. And it’s done in a sustainable, regenerative and very environmentally-friendly way.'
That "Grass" would most likely have been forest or some other biome which would act as a better reserve for biodiversity and as a carbon sink. I've got heathland near me which needs to be slash and burned every so often to maintain it for livestock and for a few isolated sand lizards whom seem to have got trapped there historically. This stops birch and pine trees from growing which help suck up a lot of the excess water and helps to reduce flooding (which in my area, is becoming more of an issue). Whilst pasture fed beef may be more enviromentally benifiecial than intnsive farming methods, it does not mean it is nessisarly ecologically more friendly. Now, organisms have adapted to man-made ecosystems over time meaning that returning to traditional farming practices would potentially help restore some biodiversity and going full throttle of rewilding may cause problems because of the speed and other factors needed to be taken into consideration to succesfully do it (if possible given current social and economic restraints). It is a complex issue and doing anything may have a lot of consequences (intended or otherwise).
This just seems to be more reactionary culture war BS (not suprised, it's the telegraph) that is more concerned with pushing an agenda rather than showing "them the facts and give them the opportunity to make up their own minds". I mean I might as well be listening to a guy down the pub about ecology than the guy they interviewed. Farmer's aren't ecologists, they are farmers who expertise is in producing livestock and crops to sell. They have a diffrent set of understandings and commitments govening what they do.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
