ColtWalker1847
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2017
"Counter-reasearch" implies that there is quality research to be countered. There isn't. The claims you brought up are either twisted or falsifications. The agri-science is pretty clear on what is and is not best practices.but has any counter research been forthcoming? Are the vegans right? Are we to grovel before vegans' infinite wisdom and moral authority?
I dunno. What do you make of all this? Are we anywhere close to a final word on this controversial topic?
Let's break down the factory farm water usage claim as an example. The water usage is largely attributed to what was used to grow feed crops. But the crops are nearly all grown with dryland farming practices. Not only that but they are all tertiary crops i.e what is grown on the odd year out in a crop rotation. That is when they aren't just processing waste products (peapods, corncobs, spoilage, etc). That changes the equation a bit, doncha think?
When you start digging and get into what the agri-scientists, farmers, ag service people, and industry organizations say (not the activists and unqualified scientists like ecologists who are almost universally retarded when it comes to speaking knowledgeably about ag stuff) it becomes readily apparent that very little of any of this has any merit at all.
It also becomes apparent that the activist people think that operating very small oversized-garden "farms" is the most efficient method of food production. This, as best as I can tell, is based on an ambiguous definition of "sustainable" that these hobby farms apparently inherently possess. This calculation apparently does not consider poor land use, low yields, and high losses to be antithecal to "sustainability".