(February 23, 2016 at 11:20 am)Rhythm Wrote: Most ranchers don't own the cattle, their pastures are temporary accommodations (mostly overwintering) for much, much larger operations that cut production costs by letting cows eat grass and mill around for once in their miserable lives. They really don't give a fuck when push comes to shove. They'll cover their pastures with -anything- that's meets the final row in their financial projections..or nothing at all.
I think that many ranchers, today, would breathe a sigh of relief if there was some reason that livestock for consumption became less of a temptation. The risk is phenomenal, the reward is honestly and artificially minimal...but when you're scrutinizing the numbers it's hard to say no to meat..here for example. Alternative land use is a subject of keen interest right now, and in most cases if you aren't wholly invested into the meat production monolith (and,importantly, to their standards of scale)...then your acreage is probably going to be more productive (fiscally and physically) doing anything else. Just letting the grass grow for feed is more viable between 5 and 50 acres.
What's happening now is that ranchers are taking an absolute bath in support of a meat production system that many have severe objections to from almost every possible angle. The pitch is enticing, year after year people jump in, and year after year they find themselves selling pieces of their land..hilariously, pieces that often become competitors, further diluting the pool of success. Limiting the temptation that leads those guys to ruin would almost certainly result in them making better choices for themselves and as regards land use.
Meat processors would be up in arms. Ranchers, only insomuch as their fortunes seem to them, in the present, to hinge upon the existence of the former. The animals aren't the only thing being exploited on the range.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe staying on topic and relating these blocks of text to it in a tangible way might help.
