A highly misleading new documentary claims soil carbon storage can redeem the livestock industry – it’s all so much ‘moo-woo’, says the Guardian columnist George Monbiot
The core point of regenerative ag is to not have to import outside fertilizers/feed. That you replace that with land management – crop rotation, essentially, giving the land time to regrow on its own.
There’s no free energy coming from the cows. It comes from the goddamn sun. If you don’t load your pastures with monoculture grass stock and chew it to the dirt every season, you don’t have to constantly plow and fertilize it to keep it grazeable.
Don’t accuse me of being an industry shill, by the way. I am not from the rurals. I actually read up on this because soil health and soil science is fascinating and this is from where a lot of the research is coming.
And the transportation costs I referred to are costs transporting and producing those fertilizers – and the supplemental feeds you need when you overextend the land and thus have to stop grazing on them during long stretches.
I’m not sure if this point is lost on you or if you’re being obtuse, but you have dodged it again here even though I think I mentioned it pretty directly here.
There’s little more damaging to a cow’s health than living on concrete or in close indoor quarters. Than standing around in shit all day, breaking open their hooves on curbs, and all that crap.
Your argument here is that it may not work everywhere and is therefore bad… that’s a bad argument.
It comes from the goddamn sun. If you don’t load your pastures with monoculture grass stock and chew it to the dirt every season, you don’t have to constantly plow and fertilize it to keep it grazeable.
Cows aren’t necessary.
It comes from the goddamn sun. If you don’t load your pastures with monoculture grass stock and chew it to the dirt every season, you don’t have to constantly plow and fertilize it to keep it grazeable.
Same, but I have actual degrees in Ag. & Life Sci.
When you promote this grazing idea, you’re also bringing in land use change, which means that you’re destroying food provisioning and, thus, food security, in order to create a luxury commodity for a few people.
If you don’t keep in mind what the point is to feed people, you’re going to keep missing the big picture.
And the transportation costs I referred to are costs transporting and producing those fertilizers – and the supplemental feeds you need when you overextend the land and thus have to stop grazing on them during long stretches.
Sure. The main problem there is the nitrogen fertilizers, not just because of the production GHGs, but also because of N2O emissions, just like from animal farming.
I’m not sure if this point is lost on you or if you’re being obtuse, but you have dodged it again here even though I think I mentioned it pretty directly here.
I’ve never once said regenerative beef farming is good for the environment. I’ve only said, consistently, that it is better than more typical industrial practices. And that those arguing that it makes no difference whether it’s industrial or regenerative are full of shit.
Read my top-level comment and tell me what in it contradicts this.
The core point of regenerative ag is to not have to import outside fertilizers/feed. That you replace that with land management – crop rotation, essentially, giving the land time to regrow on its own.
There’s no free energy coming from the cows. It comes from the goddamn sun. If you don’t load your pastures with monoculture grass stock and chew it to the dirt every season, you don’t have to constantly plow and fertilize it to keep it grazeable.
Don’t accuse me of being an industry shill, by the way. I am not from the rurals. I actually read up on this because soil health and soil science is fascinating and this is from where a lot of the research is coming.
And the transportation costs I referred to are costs transporting and producing those fertilizers – and the supplemental feeds you need when you overextend the land and thus have to stop grazing on them during long stretches.
I’m not sure if this point is lost on you or if you’re being obtuse, but you have dodged it again here even though I think I mentioned it pretty directly here.
There’s little more damaging to a cow’s health than living on concrete or in close indoor quarters. Than standing around in shit all day, breaking open their hooves on curbs, and all that crap.
Your argument here is that it may not work everywhere and is therefore bad… that’s a bad argument.
Cows aren’t necessary.
Same, but I have actual degrees in Ag. & Life Sci.
When you promote this grazing idea, you’re also bringing in land use change, which means that you’re destroying food provisioning and, thus, food security, in order to create a luxury commodity for a few people.
If you don’t keep in mind what the point is to feed people, you’re going to keep missing the big picture.
Sure. The main problem there is the nitrogen fertilizers, not just because of the production GHGs, but also because of N2O emissions, just like from animal farming.
It’s unclear what you’re arguing for. I’m trying to tell you that regenerative grazing is a scam, [2], [3], [4]. If you want to skip those links, go here: https://tabledebates.org/publication/grazed-and-confused they have a short documentary along with the report.
Cows aren’t necessary in regenerative agriculture, there are other ways which actually help with restoration and carbon storage.
No, my argument is that it’s bad to promote scams and greenwashing.
Then you’re arguing against the wrong person.
I’ve never once said regenerative beef farming is good for the environment. I’ve only said, consistently, that it is better than more typical industrial practices. And that those arguing that it makes no difference whether it’s industrial or regenerative are full of shit.
Read my top-level comment and tell me what in it contradicts this.