Perfectly reasonable. I would query the statement "their current scientific appraisal" since most people in that category seem to be getting a corrupted or biassed message in the name of science that is spoon fed to them by the media at the moment. There is a definite political stance being taken with almost religious zeal, and this is what I find disturbing.
I was aware that scientists are working on replacements for artificial fertilisers but I wasn't aware that governments are trying to phase out their use - could you provide a link? Thanks.
Yes, a lot of science reporting doesn't make it easy for a layperson to get a balanced picture and I take your point about religious zeal. I was, however, talking about scientists who are working in the field and have a much better understanding than any layperson or media guru. If they change their behaviour as a result of their understanding, it would then be wrong to accuse them of bias because they've changed their behaviour.
use of oil is what the governments are trying to phase out, in all its applications. Its deemed a fossil fuel. My point is that they have no alternative as far as i know, so they are swapping one problem - animals, for another - increased need for petrochemical fertilizers.
Oddly sometimes not but thy sometimes insist on feeding them vegan diets which of course is animal cruelty.
What about the and where we can't grow stuff but animals can graze quite comfortably.. that would be out of food production so overall productivity would fall? Moors, steep slopes rocky land... grass grows almost everywhere (apart obviously from extremes of temperature) so can be used as animal food.
I think there are alternatives available but not as cheap to produce or as efficient, The so called chemical fertilizers are indeed derived from the distillate from the refactory process used to refine crude into its constituent parts. These will become less attractive as the oil reserves run out.
If the plan is to use more land to grow more crops they had better be quick before it all disappears under new housing.
Or under the rising sea levels.If the plan is to use more land to grow more crops they had better be quick before it all disappears under new housing.
They do.... Our council gave the go ahead to build on land next to the river that gets flooded each year, and a local estate agent was offering a free wetsuit for every applicant. Every home was sold, and they are now expanding it massively to cope with demand. There are no shops or facilities, but the estate will soon house nearly 15000 people. Most roads on the estate are one way only, so makes it difficult to visit. Apparently that deters boy racers, but in fact it encourages them more because they stand less chance of meeting themselves coming the other way. This large estate has only 2 entrance/exit junction onto the same main road to the motorway so all traffic ends up at the same place, and there is gridlock during term time. Again this is to deter through traffic and rat runs.That's OK, they can build the houses on flood plains
Perhaps they should tax fat but not lean meat [red or otherwise] which I eat as something that doesn't put my glucose levels up.
