Again, when the processors absorb that subsidy, what good is that?
I'd be a believer in CAP as a means of what it was intended to do - ensure a constant supply of high quality food, and protect against weather related and other market shocks, not to solve imbalances in the market.
That's not quite the process.
CO2 is taken in by grass. Cattle take in the grass, among which is CO2, and water , H2O.
CO2 + 2(H2O) >>> CH4 + O2 (Methane and oxygen)
Methane is a far more potent GHG than CO2. It contributes to the green house effect alongside CO2 in much the same manner, but pound for pound it is 28 times worse.
This is the reason why I am coming to the conclusion that the future of slurry is slurry dryers and AD. AD would means we could replace natural gas with biomethane, and as I posted last week, stop the talks of reducing the national herd because now they would be a part of the electricity supply. We would at least be getting rid of our CO2 emissions from gas, and as the reaction I posted above is reverseable, (I haven't done chemistry since I was in school so may be open to correction), that methane and oxygen would eventually change back into CO2 and water again, reabsorbed by the grass, and the cycle begins again.
Anyways, all that is irrelevant, the crux of what I was getting at is the fact the French farmers get 10.81% more than we do. Why don't we focus on why we are being dry rode by the processors instead of trying to prove the scientists wrong.
View attachment 88686