If it were a conversation with actual people, terms like "rotational grazing" and "enhance" would be defined and at least roughly quantified.
Yep, none of whom realize how insane they all sound at this point.
In the detailed history of England, the agriculture section explained a situation that happened way back in the past. (I can't get to it right now because it's packed up and in a closet)This situation arose where a lot of farmers stopped raising food crops and instead let the fields go fallow and raised livestock instead, because it was much easier, cost less, and they could make much more money. It became so detrimental to the farming situation (or rather the powers that be) that the Government had to act, to force crops to be grown, rather than everyone raising livestock.I read it many years ago, but it was interesting. It seems letting animals forage, and moving them from field to field, both increased the productivity of the plant life (from the manure and letting the fields naturally recover), and was low cost, compared to plowing, planting, weeding, harvesting and spreading manure for crops.And it was lucrative, because the animals naturally reproduced, increasing in number, and each animal provided ready income in a variety of ways. Wool, leather, milk, meat, even horses could be rented or used for mechanical work, the entire thing was explained as a problem, from an economic point of view, since grain and vegetables and even hay started being in short supply. I should dig it out and read it again.The issues of profit were varied, with crops being less risky, but better in the long run, while animals were a risk and more labor intensive (no days off), but for some reason the situation was such that more and more people started raising animals rather than food crops. There was some explaining of how beneficial animals grazing was to the soil, unlike intensive crop raising, which depleted the fields.It's actually an interesting subject,