the movie is titled: Six Inches of Soil
The comments on the article are a dumpster fire. I’m not sure if it’s just UK Guardian comments being worse than on the other regional variants, of if animal agriculture shills are targeting this article in particular.
deleted by creator
More importantly, the counterfactual scenario went unmentioned: if his cattle were removed from the land and it was allowed to rewild, far more carbon would accumulate, both above and below ground, and this would not be counteracted by the farm’s emissions
That’s not the counterfactual, though.
The ACTUAL counterfactual is that the demand for beef continues to skyrocket worldwide and that if we do not embrace regenerative agriculture practices, we must instead continue to endlessly fertilize soils and buy feedstocks to keep the beef growing. The actual counterfactual to having this guy pushing his farm towards more sustainable practice is that he’ll continue to operate the farm with less sustainable practice. Or even more likely, become financially unsustainable and have to sell out to a larger industrial farm who will operate the land in the least sustainable way possible to extract the most quarterly profits possible because they don’t give any damn about the long term.
And the ACTUAL counterfactual is that if western markets abandon beef production, there’s plenty of farmers happy to raze the Amazon and other even-more-critical ecosystems to do it there instead. Because the demand will be there regardless.
It’s utter fantasy to pretend that everyone is just going to wake up vegan tomorrow. It’s not going to happen. This author clearly is arguing that we need to… I don’t know, outlaw beef, I guess? Just ban it entirely? And then take all the farmland and convert it to protected wildlife habitats instead? Including a staff of rangers who will oversee and protect the land to make sure it stays healthy, safe, and sustainable? Because that’s the only way the ‘counterfactual’ he made up makes one lick of sense.
It’s a good strategy for environmentalists to take… if they want to ensure they lose elections and doom us all.
It is disingenuous to claim that regenerative agriculture practices can even hope to be a functional carbon sink. But they can hugely reduce the emissions and mitigate the other externalities of an incredibly polluting industry. And do it in a way that simultaneously increases animal welfare, reduces spread of disease, and increases profits progressively (because these practices are actually easier and more effective at smaller sizes rather than at huge industrial operations).
Because the demand will be there regardless.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Your argument here is that it may not work everywhere and is therefore bad… that’s a bad argument.
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.
Definitional retreat – changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.[22] Often paired with moving the goalposts (see below), as when an argument is challenged using a common definition of a term in the argument, and the arguer presents a different definition of the term and thereby demands different evidence to debunk the argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam)—also known as the false compromise, argument from middle ground, fallacy of gray, middle ground fallacy, or golden mean fallacy[1]—is the fallacy that the truth is always in the middle of two opposites.
What word are you accusing me of redefining and what moderation am I suggesting?
The argument of this article can apply to literally all of agriculture, not just animal produce. It applies to fucking backyard tomatoes. Increasing sustainability and reducing emissions should be seen as a good thing. Even when you don’t get directly to 0 from the beginning.
Starting with the lowest-hanging fruit isn’t capitulation, it’s progress. If your position is completely undoing all of a global capitalist system tomorrow or bust, you’re getting bust and likely taking others with you.
Redefining the counterfactual scenario. Why ignore the case of less beef production out of hand? Beef consumption has been declining over time in a number of countries. Then proceed to ignore the rest of the article’s main point after that one word
Beef is an enormous outlier in emissions and they are pointing out that the claims that supposedly reduce it are highly missleading. They’re not much of a reduction. People tout it as if the emissions were gone. They’re nowhere near that
Moving my reply to the comment that wasn’t deleted…
Redefining the counterfactual scenario
Lord please give me the strength to not give this guy a Logic and Critical Thinking 101 lecture… Definitional retreat does not apply to what I said about the counterfactual because that was not an argument about what the term “counterfactual” means. It only applies when people argue about the definition of a word. He and I have the same definition of the word “counterfactual”.
What you MEANT is that you DISAGREE with my assessment of the counterfactual scenario. But instead, you tried to make yourself seem very clever and logical and me very foolish and emotional by misappropriating a term.
Why ignore the case of less beef production out of hand
Why ignore the reality that annual beef demand is growing consistently every year? Especially in the global south, where the environmental effects of raising beef are in fact way worse.
I think you should just say what you actually want to say.
Here, I’ll do my best to do it for you:
Beef production is an environmental disaster. These people working to mitigate the harms of that industry are mopping the decks of a sinking ship. If they really want to say they care about the environment, the only reasonable choice is shutting down their ranches and doing something else, because beef is just hopeless.
To which I’ll respond in mostly the same way I have. That’s nice and all, but beef demand is still growing. I’d rather farmers that do their best to mitigate harms raising the beef than the ones who only care about making the most short-term profit possible, damn sustainability. Keep going out there and preaching for veganism. I hope you succeed. Don’t make enemies out of your allies along the way.
deleted by creator
But my book club leader says working within our current means is counterrevolutionary!
It’s increasingly a problematic attitude I see among some of the gamer chair leftist groups of Lemmy. That anyone attempting any kind of pragmatism is identified as a liberal reactionary. Any criticism of their particular pet theory within socialism is just counterrevolutionary propaganda.
Imo it’s kinda counterproductive considering that leftism is built upon the ideas of mutual cooperation and aid.
This is all missing the point. People are claiming it’s carbon free or low emission when it is still substantially higher than other things. The beef industry loves to promote this as if it solves beef emissions. It does not. The emissions are still very much there. If it was touted as a small reduction that would be one thing
You really, really need to read up more on the world of regenerative ag. It’s not typically touted as being “zero emissions” or anything like that outside of this op-ed writer’s strawman argument.
It’s almost entirely sold as a way to avoid having to buy expensive feed and fertilizers through better land management. Do you really think the average farmer gives a fuck about the climate? They have bills to pay. They like that there’s sustainability benefits to the practices, don’t get me wrong, and and being able to advertise the better practices that went into producing the beef is part the pitch, but this is all about cost-savings and improving product quality almost entirely through thoughtful field rotation and reduced/eliminated tilling.
And it does work. Small farmers who have enough land and patience to adopt these practices can almost entirely eliminate their needs for buying fertilizers and feed. Which I’ll remind you, outside of transportation, is the main source of carbon emissions for most farms. Methane from cellulose digestion is another battle that is being waged separately.
Moreover, the more farmers prove that it CAN be done in a financially sustainable way, the easier it becomes to get rid of the worse environmental practices, both on friendly soil and abroad.
People are claiming it’s carbon free or low emission when it is still substantially higher than other things.
Who? The person I responded to was not making that claim…
The beef industry loves to promote this as if it solves beef emissions. It does not. The emissions are still very much there.
No one here is agreeing with the beef industry, they were just specifying that a few countries abstaining from the beef industry would not inherently limit the demand for the beef industry. Meaning that the production of beef would just move to regions with less environmental protections.
My comment was just extrapolating on a personal opinion about modern leftism and how we typically deal with conflicting rationality from within.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
