Paul Saladino· MD
basically farmers are being paid to not farm parts of their land and not graze them and it makes no sense
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
basically farmers are being paid to not farm parts of their land and not graze them and it makes no sense
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the reason that land can become regenerated rehabilitated so much more quickly with animals is because the poop and the pee but we're just paying farmers to let it sit there and we could be doing it much faster
the us government pays farmers hundreds of thousands of acres in the united states are laid fallow which means there is nothing being grown on them and there are no animals on them because we're not to the fact that the animals would regenerate the land faster because we're just letting the land sit there for 50 plus years to regenerate the damage that has been done with monocrop agriculture