4 ms·

I've been on the other side of this - going more toward regenerative ranching as the other way away from the industrial food supply. I can't really beat Diana

I've been on the other side of this - going more toward regenerative ranching as the other way away from the industrial food supply. I can't really beat Diana Rogers on explaining this, so I'll just point you here. https://sustainabledish.com/fake-burgers-make-no-sense/ https://sustainabledish.com/fake-burgers-make-no-sense/ Also - before folks say that we couldn't feed everyone that way, I always like to point out that before the Europeans decimated the American bison, there were more head of bison roaming the west than there are head of cattle today. Just turning our monocrop soy and corn farms in the midwest back to prairie (by actually doing nothing to the land - just leave it alone), we could have regenerative ranching and cows and more food for less energy input than we do today.

mikeg8 5y ago
You are right on the money here and I wish more people understood that there is a sustainable path forward using animals as part of the carbon capture solution. When you say you are on the other side do you mean actively working on ranching? It's something I'm very interested in myself.
Falling3 5y ago
>I always like to point out that before the Europeans decimated the American bison, there were more head of bison roaming the west than there are head of cattle today. I don't think that's true. Most estimates of the peak Bison population I've seen put them at about 30 million. Some estimates are as high as 60 million. Today, we have about 94 million head of cattle down from a peak of 104. Additionally, your linked article is incredibly unconvincing. It's riddled with Appeals to Nature and attempts to use a single instance of questionable behavior by a single company to poison the well for all alternatives to raising animals for slaughter.
atweiden 5y ago
Regenerative agriculture is not a sustainability solution [1]: Written by FCRN’s Dr Tara Garnett in collaboration with Cécile Godde of CSIRO and a team of international experts, this report dissects claims made by different stakeholders in the debate, and evaluates them against the best available science. This report finds that better management of grass-fed livestock do not hold a solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate. Dr Garnett explains the key takeaways from this report: “This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.” [1]: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-news-grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-news-grazed-and-...
- Jensson 5y ago
  How can't it be a sustainable solution? Cows doesn't magically generate carbon out of nothing, it comes from the plants they eat. If you have a stable farmland area like Europe and keep raising and slaughtering cattle on it then the carbon footprint is net 0.
  - desdiv 5y ago
    Methane has more than 10 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. That means if the grazing plants capture 1 mol of carbon dioxide from the air, and then is consumed by cows who turn some of the carbon into methane, then the warming potential of the system has increased even though it's still carbon neutral.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Methane breaks down though, it only gets worse if we scale up production. Basically eating meat forever is equivalent to a year or so of other carbon pollutants. I'd rather we regulate other emissions a year or so early than ban all meat forever.
throwaway192874 5y ago
This is an incredibly unconvincing article that flat out misrepresents facts or didn't do enough research to actually understand what happened. Most of it complains saying that Impossible Foods went to market without being approved by the FDA and implies it's unsafe, but that seems to be literally 100% false and completely misrepresents the facts from my basic research on it. They received FDA approval in Oct 2019 [0]. The Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit against _the FDA and Impossible Foods_ later that year saying they didn't think a strong enough standard for approval was done. Earlier this year, the court ruled in favor of the FDA and said they did have enough reason to believe it was safe. [1] [0]: https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2019/07/fda-color-additive-approval https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2019/07/fda-... [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22418036/impossible-foods-legal-battle-key-ingredient-heme-fda https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22418036/impossible-foods-... I had some more written about this but it doesn't even explain the method it claims is better, provides no scientific evidence for them, and ends by saying things like "WILL NOT SAVE US" and "NOT MORE HUMANE" bold and in caps. You can make up your own mind on how trustworthy this is.
timbit42 5y ago
Decimate means to kill 1 in 10, thus the 'deci' part.

mikeg8 5y ago

You are right on the money here and I wish more people understood that there is a sustainable path forward using animals as part of the carbon capture solution. When you say you are on the other side do you mean actively working on ranching? It's something I'm very interested in myself.

Falling3 5y ago

>I always like to point out that before the Europeans decimated the American bison, there were more head of bison roaming the west than there are head of cattle today. I don't think that's true. Most estimates of the peak Bison population I've seen put them at about 30 million. Some estimates are as high as 60 million. Today, we have about 94 million head of cattle down from a peak of 104. Additionally, your linked article is incredibly unconvincing. It's riddled with Appeals to Nature and attempts to use a single instance of questionable behavior by a single company to poison the well for all alternatives to raising animals for slaughter.

atweiden 5y ago

Regenerative agriculture is not a sustainability solution [1]: Written by FCRN’s Dr Tara Garnett in collaboration with Cécile Godde of CSIRO and a team of international experts, this report dissects claims made by different stakeholders in the debate, and evaluates them against the best available science. This report finds that better management of grass-fed livestock do not hold a solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate. Dr Garnett explains the key takeaways from this report: “This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.” [1]: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-news-grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-news-grazed-and-...

Jensson 5y ago
How can't it be a sustainable solution? Cows doesn't magically generate carbon out of nothing, it comes from the plants they eat. If you have a stable farmland area like Europe and keep raising and slaughtering cattle on it then the carbon footprint is net 0.
- desdiv 5y ago
  Methane has more than 10 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. That means if the grazing plants capture 1 mol of carbon dioxide from the air, and then is consumed by cows who turn some of the carbon into methane, then the warming potential of the system has increased even though it's still carbon neutral.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    Methane breaks down though, it only gets worse if we scale up production. Basically eating meat forever is equivalent to a year or so of other carbon pollutants. I'd rather we regulate other emissions a year or so early than ban all meat forever.

throwaway192874 5y ago

This is an incredibly unconvincing article that flat out misrepresents facts or didn't do enough research to actually understand what happened. Most of it complains saying that Impossible Foods went to market without being approved by the FDA and implies it's unsafe, but that seems to be literally 100% false and completely misrepresents the facts from my basic research on it. They received FDA approval in Oct 2019 [0]. The Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit against _the FDA and Impossible Foods_ later that year saying they didn't think a strong enough standard for approval was done. Earlier this year, the court ruled in favor of the FDA and said they did have enough reason to believe it was safe. [1] [0]: https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2019/07/fda-color-additive-approval https://impossiblefoods.com/media/news-releases/2019/07/fda-... [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22418036/impossible-foods-legal-battle-key-ingredient-heme-fda https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22418036/impossible-foods-... I had some more written about this but it doesn't even explain the method it claims is better, provides no scientific evidence for them, and ends by saying things like "WILL NOT SAVE US" and "NOT MORE HUMANE" bold and in caps. You can make up your own mind on how trustworthy this is.

timbit42 5y ago

Decimate means to kill 1 in 10, thus the 'deci' part.