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
Yes and no. There are many aspects that go into demand and availability. If demand was so inelastic, there wouldn’t be a shitload shit lagoon load of advertising going into it.
But they can hugely reduce the emissions
No, they can’t. It’s still a net polluter, the “free energy cow” systems. You can compare them to “conventional” animal farming, but you have to be aware of what you’re comparing. Ruminants that eat hay and grass emit more GHGs as the bacteria in their rumens ferment the fibers. The ones that eat grains and legumes do produce way less methane as the food is more digestible and less fibrous. They also grow faster, so CAFOs actually produce less GHGs per pound of flesh in the end. That’s the stupid irony of it, the “regenerative” types are making everything even worse, they’re accelerating the problems. The deforestation and draining of wetlands are yet another problem on top of everything else.
It’s certainly not simple, but change needs to come from both ends: supply and demand. The “regenerative grazing” types aren’t working on that, they’re just greenwashing the Meat industry.
And do it in a way that simultaneously increases animal welfare, reduces spread of disease
Nope, not that either. You exchange one type of harm for another, in terms of welfare. The animals being outside means exposure to nasty weather, all kinds of parasites and pathogens that travel by vector (i.e. ticks, mosquitoes, flies), heat waves, lack of water, lack of food, predators (which the ranchers and their friends love to kill), and rustlers! And the more movement (herding) there is, the smaller the chance of veterinarians being around. You can see the veterinary issue already in the “low-tech pastoralists” as they already have a rise in antivaxxers and anti-antibiotic bullshit. These are not hypothetical, you have remember that there are other places in the World which aren’t the USA.
because these practices are actually easier and more effective at smaller sizes rather than at huge industrial operations
They would cover a small slice of the demand, which would be a terrible idea as it turns into a race for a rare luxury. Instead of having solidarity across society and ending the problematic behaviors, you get a “only rich people get it” situation. And I mean rich people, none of that localvore nonsense. Anyone who thinks that the local slaughterer or butcher will sell cow flesh to them, instead of selling on the market for much larger prices, does not understand capitalism and pastoralism at all. This doesn’t work out nicely, it’s a situation where you allow cheaters. If you want to see a preview, go study pastoralists in Africa.
Please try not to engage in the straw man of the carbon free shit. We agree it’s bullshit. There’s no such thing as emission free ag at any level and particularly for beef.
You’ve got to acknowledge that transportation and production of and feed/fertilizer are major sources of emissions that are reduced, and potentially eliminated, by these practices. There’s no point having a serious discussion if you refuse to do that.
I’m also really having eyebrows raised by your apparent claims that its not healthier for the animals to be pasture raised. I think you are in a serious minority in believing that.
I’m in the minority that doesn’t get an education from industry marketing materials. Welfare is complicated. Organic is complicated. There are people who believe that this magical outdoor pasture system is the best of all worlds. They are wrong.
If you actually listen to the animal farmers you’ll hear them explain the breeds they farm aren’t “hardy” enough to be outdoors so much, especially for the dairy cows who can hardly move with the giant udders. In more mountainous landscapes, where you can often find unnatural grasslands, the animals have even more trouble going up and down. There are “hardy” breeds, of course, but they’re not popular since they grow slowly and are less profitable - which doesn’t even mean that it’s “high welfare” to be outside, it just means that they don’t get sick and die as easily.
The insect problem is also relevant, it’s also the reason why the “backyard” outdoor flocks are more exposed to avian influenza. The same applies to the rest of the farm animals. Being outside is being exposed. One of the welfare arguments for CAFOs is actually that it’s safer inside. This is where the “antibiotic free” and “antivaxx” animal farms are going to be more relevant too.
Climate heating is going to change the game too, it has already started. You’ll hear more and more news about animals freezing outside (to death) or animals overheating (to death).
So while you try to weigh what’s actually “well” for each animal, you’ll find that there are a lot of contradictions and a lot of nuance, more so if you also want profits.
You’ve got to acknowledge that transportation and production of and feed/fertilizer are major sources of emissions that are reduced, and potentially eliminated, by these practices. There’s no point having a serious discussion if you refuse to do that.
Let me know how often you see large animal drives across large distances. Let me know how you think that works with welfare too. You do know that this is the traditional way to do it, right? The “backyard” thing is very low production overall. For live animal exports (trucks, ships etc.) I don’t think that I need to point out that the welfare. The energy use is, of course, dependent on the total mass. Add to that the post-slaughter transport which, for animal parts, usually requires a cold chain (even more GHGs).
Your point about feed/fertilizer should be more clear. Are you just referring to the methane used for fertilizer production? And if you think that it can be replaced with animal shit, well, you’re wrong. Animals aren’t free energy machines.
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.
Yes and no. There are many aspects that go into demand and availability. If demand was so inelastic, there wouldn’t be a
shitloadshit lagoon load of advertising going into it.No, they can’t. It’s still a net polluter, the “free energy cow” systems. You can compare them to “conventional” animal farming, but you have to be aware of what you’re comparing. Ruminants that eat hay and grass emit more GHGs as the bacteria in their rumens ferment the fibers. The ones that eat grains and legumes do produce way less methane as the food is more digestible and less fibrous. They also grow faster, so CAFOs actually produce less GHGs per pound of flesh in the end. That’s the stupid irony of it, the “regenerative” types are making everything even worse, they’re accelerating the problems. The deforestation and draining of wetlands are yet another problem on top of everything else.
It’s certainly not simple, but change needs to come from both ends: supply and demand. The “regenerative grazing” types aren’t working on that, they’re just greenwashing the Meat industry.
Nope, not that either. You exchange one type of harm for another, in terms of welfare. The animals being outside means exposure to nasty weather, all kinds of parasites and pathogens that travel by vector (i.e. ticks, mosquitoes, flies), heat waves, lack of water, lack of food, predators (which the ranchers and their friends love to kill), and rustlers! And the more movement (herding) there is, the smaller the chance of veterinarians being around. You can see the veterinary issue already in the “low-tech pastoralists” as they already have a rise in antivaxxers and anti-antibiotic bullshit. These are not hypothetical, you have remember that there are other places in the World which aren’t the USA.
They would cover a small slice of the demand, which would be a terrible idea as it turns into a race for a rare luxury. Instead of having solidarity across society and ending the problematic behaviors, you get a “only rich people get it” situation. And I mean rich people, none of that localvore nonsense. Anyone who thinks that the local slaughterer or butcher will sell cow flesh to them, instead of selling on the market for much larger prices, does not understand capitalism and pastoralism at all. This doesn’t work out nicely, it’s a situation where you allow cheaters. If you want to see a preview, go study pastoralists in Africa.
Please try not to engage in the straw man of the carbon free shit. We agree it’s bullshit. There’s no such thing as emission free ag at any level and particularly for beef.
You’ve got to acknowledge that transportation and production of and feed/fertilizer are major sources of emissions that are reduced, and potentially eliminated, by these practices. There’s no point having a serious discussion if you refuse to do that.
I’m also really having eyebrows raised by your apparent claims that its not healthier for the animals to be pasture raised. I think you are in a serious minority in believing that.
I’m in the minority that doesn’t get an education from industry marketing materials. Welfare is complicated. Organic is complicated. There are people who believe that this magical outdoor pasture system is the best of all worlds. They are wrong.
If you actually listen to the animal farmers you’ll hear them explain the breeds they farm aren’t “hardy” enough to be outdoors so much, especially for the dairy cows who can hardly move with the giant udders. In more mountainous landscapes, where you can often find unnatural grasslands, the animals have even more trouble going up and down. There are “hardy” breeds, of course, but they’re not popular since they grow slowly and are less profitable - which doesn’t even mean that it’s “high welfare” to be outside, it just means that they don’t get sick and die as easily.
The insect problem is also relevant, it’s also the reason why the “backyard” outdoor flocks are more exposed to avian influenza. The same applies to the rest of the farm animals. Being outside is being exposed. One of the welfare arguments for CAFOs is actually that it’s safer inside. This is where the “antibiotic free” and “antivaxx” animal farms are going to be more relevant too.
Climate heating is going to change the game too, it has already started. You’ll hear more and more news about animals freezing outside (to death) or animals overheating (to death).
So while you try to weigh what’s actually “well” for each animal, you’ll find that there are a lot of contradictions and a lot of nuance, more so if you also want profits.
You’ll have to provide specific data. Like here: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Let me know how often you see large animal drives across large distances. Let me know how you think that works with welfare too. You do know that this is the traditional way to do it, right? The “backyard” thing is very low production overall. For live animal exports (trucks, ships etc.) I don’t think that I need to point out that the welfare. The energy use is, of course, dependent on the total mass. Add to that the post-slaughter transport which, for animal parts, usually requires a cold chain (even more GHGs).
Your point about feed/fertilizer should be more clear. Are you just referring to the methane used for fertilizer production? And if you think that it can be replaced with animal shit, well, you’re wrong. Animals aren’t free energy machines.
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.