3 ms·

If you put cattle on farmland, and utilize regenerative agriculture techniques, it costs a bit more, because yields aren't artificially boosted while destroying

If you put cattle on farmland, and utilize regenerative agriculture techniques, it costs a bit more, because yields aren't artificially boosted while destroying the topsoil. In return you actually capture carbon into the grasses from the atmosphere. That would normally just rot, but the herbivores digest it and make it bioavailable for the fungi and bacteria in the soil, where the carbon accumulates. The herbivores are key component of sustainable agriculture, you can't do it without them. Lab grown meat is an interesting, energy intensive step in the wrong direction. I think we can all agree that there are problems with factory farming, and grain finishing livestock.

dqv 4y ago
I've seen this argument get eaten, partialy digested, spit back up, then go through 3 compartments of a stomach and it still doesn't make sense when you actually think about it. If the intent is actual sustainability, then they have to be given their full 20 years to live. The cattle themselves act as carbon sinks too and have to be part of the whole ecosystem, not only exposed to one part of it. If you're constantly slaughtering them and replacing them, it's not doing much. It just sounds nice. >it costs a bit more "A bit" is an understatement. >The herbivores are key component of sustainable agriculture, you can't do it without them. You can't. But you have to do it without eating the vast majority of them. The Myth of Regenerative Ranching: >[...] >If regenerative agriculture were to challenge the mainstream food system, it would run into some hard physical limits. Converting the beef industry, at current levels of demand, entirely to a grass- and crop-forage feeding system would require increasing the total size of American beef herds by 23 million cows, or 30 percent, according to a recent article in the respected science journal Environmental Research Letters. And that increase, were it even possible, would have monumental consequences for both greenhouse gas outputs and land use. But there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. for that many grazers. At best, beef production would have to decrease by 39 percent and potentially as much as 73 percent. Framed that way, grass-fed grazing, especially if scaled, doesn’t seem likely to regenerate many ecosystems—indeed, it would likely require deforestation, as is the case in Brazil, where the clear-cutting of the Amazon is driven both by soy plantations for feedlot and factory farm animal feed and by the need for grazing space for grass-fed cattle. And as the Environmental Research Letters article argued, even temporary overgrazing can lead to long-term and perhaps irreversible ecological degradation. >[...] >Actually making animal agriculture less ecologically disruptive would mean taking animals’ ecological value as a bedrock principle against and over their value as commodities. That means treating commodity production, not land, as “marginal”: Commodities could be extracted only if doing so didn’t disturb the ecological, social, and cultural value of the landscape. In other words, in most such systems, animals would more than likely play a minor support role for primarily plant agriculture. And that, in turn, would almost certainly mean far fewer grazers entering the commercial food system, and at a much higher price point. Point Reyes, for example, might feature free-ranging elk managed by an Indigenous best practice–driven conservation agency, not dairy cattle grazed by private ranches. This kind of truly eco-friendly meat production would produce even less meat than the current grab bag of practices loosely labeled “regenerative.” https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ranching https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ran...
- asdff 4y ago
  The ecological role idea is interesting. The great plains for instance used to support some 30 million bison that native populations would harvest from. There is an ecological role for ruminants in this case in these regions. Today the great planes have 16 million cattle (1), and one could argue this remains a good area for ruminants to graze. 1. https://agrilifetoday.tamu.edu/2021/04/29/great-plains-grasslands-beef-cattle-production-rural-economies-challenged-by-climate-variability/ https://agrilifetoday.tamu.edu/2021/04/29/great-plains-grass...
soco 4y ago
Yes we agree, only not on the "a bit more" cost. The cost is significantly more - even if imported from a much cheaper country. Also the request is huge compared to what sustainable agriculture can sustain - let's not forget that the farmers of yore weren't eating beef with each meal, while nowadays it's a matter of status for many.
lofatdairy 4y ago
>In return you actually capture carbon into the grasses from the atmosphere. That would normally just rot, but the herbivores digest it and make it bioavailable for the fungi and bacteria in the soil, where the carbon accumulates I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. A lot of the ecological arguments against meat-eating is because cattle grazing requires huge swaths of land. Current practices generate this land via deforestation (I don't have statistics on how much land is generated via deforestation, but we can at least conclude that it's A Thing That Happens^{tm})[^1]. While certainly, grass captures some carbon, I'm going to guess that it's far less than a rainforest ecosystem of the same area, especially since the rainforest isn't being actively consumed. There's also the biodiversity of a forest environment. [^1]: https://archive.ph/4pRMd https://archive.ph/4pRMd <- WP article
- tomp 4y ago
  > Current practices generate this land via deforestation Current practices in undeveloped countries. Advanced economies have been reforesting recently. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?locations=US-EU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?location...
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Livestock is generally bad for the environment, I think mostly the argument is mostly about "how bad."
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  > I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. It’s been proven by Allen Savory and others, you can check his Ted talk here https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI Even if lab grown meat is the next best thing since sliced bread it would be a complete climate disaster to not continue, and expand, holistic cattle farming.
midoridensha 4y ago
What you're describing is a fantasy. There simply is not enough natural grassland out there for the entire human race to grow enough meat to eat this way. That's why the Amazon is being chopped down to make more land for grazing. Lab grown meat is a step in a direction that allows us to not use so much land for livestock.

dqv 4y ago

I've seen this argument get eaten, partialy digested, spit back up, then go through 3 compartments of a stomach and it still doesn't make sense when you actually think about it. If the intent is actual sustainability, then they have to be given their full 20 years to live. The cattle themselves act as carbon sinks too and have to be part of the whole ecosystem, not only exposed to one part of it. If you're constantly slaughtering them and replacing them, it's not doing much. It just sounds nice. >it costs a bit more "A bit" is an understatement. >The herbivores are key component of sustainable agriculture, you can't do it without them. You can't. But you have to do it without eating the vast majority of them. The Myth of Regenerative Ranching: >[...] >If regenerative agriculture were to challenge the mainstream food system, it would run into some hard physical limits. Converting the beef industry, at current levels of demand, entirely to a grass- and crop-forage feeding system would require increasing the total size of American beef herds by 23 million cows, or 30 percent, according to a recent article in the respected science journal Environmental Research Letters. And that increase, were it even possible, would have monumental consequences for both greenhouse gas outputs and land use. But there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. for that many grazers. At best, beef production would have to decrease by 39 percent and potentially as much as 73 percent. Framed that way, grass-fed grazing, especially if scaled, doesn’t seem likely to regenerate many ecosystems—indeed, it would likely require deforestation, as is the case in Brazil, where the clear-cutting of the Amazon is driven both by soy plantations for feedlot and factory farm animal feed and by the need for grazing space for grass-fed cattle. And as the Environmental Research Letters article argued, even temporary overgrazing can lead to long-term and perhaps irreversible ecological degradation. >[...] >Actually making animal agriculture less ecologically disruptive would mean taking animals’ ecological value as a bedrock principle against and over their value as commodities. That means treating commodity production, not land, as “marginal”: Commodities could be extracted only if doing so didn’t disturb the ecological, social, and cultural value of the landscape. In other words, in most such systems, animals would more than likely play a minor support role for primarily plant agriculture. And that, in turn, would almost certainly mean far fewer grazers entering the commercial food system, and at a much higher price point. Point Reyes, for example, might feature free-ranging elk managed by an Indigenous best practice–driven conservation agency, not dairy cattle grazed by private ranches. This kind of truly eco-friendly meat production would produce even less meat than the current grab bag of practices loosely labeled “regenerative.” https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ranching https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ran...

asdff 4y ago
The ecological role idea is interesting. The great plains for instance used to support some 30 million bison that native populations would harvest from. There is an ecological role for ruminants in this case in these regions. Today the great planes have 16 million cattle (1), and one could argue this remains a good area for ruminants to graze. 1. https://agrilifetoday.tamu.edu/2021/04/29/great-plains-grasslands-beef-cattle-production-rural-economies-challenged-by-climate-variability/ https://agrilifetoday.tamu.edu/2021/04/29/great-plains-grass...

soco 4y ago

Yes we agree, only not on the "a bit more" cost. The cost is significantly more - even if imported from a much cheaper country. Also the request is huge compared to what sustainable agriculture can sustain - let's not forget that the farmers of yore weren't eating beef with each meal, while nowadays it's a matter of status for many.

lofatdairy 4y ago

>In return you actually capture carbon into the grasses from the atmosphere. That would normally just rot, but the herbivores digest it and make it bioavailable for the fungi and bacteria in the soil, where the carbon accumulates I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. A lot of the ecological arguments against meat-eating is because cattle grazing requires huge swaths of land. Current practices generate this land via deforestation (I don't have statistics on how much land is generated via deforestation, but we can at least conclude that it's A Thing That Happens^{tm})[^1]. While certainly, grass captures some carbon, I'm going to guess that it's far less than a rainforest ecosystem of the same area, especially since the rainforest isn't being actively consumed. There's also the biodiversity of a forest environment. [^1]: https://archive.ph/4pRMd https://archive.ph/4pRMd <- WP article

tomp 4y ago
> Current practices generate this land via deforestation Current practices in undeveloped countries. Advanced economies have been reforesting recently. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?locations=US-EU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?location...
- roflyear 4y ago
  Livestock is generally bad for the environment, I think mostly the argument is mostly about "how bad."
hitpointdrew 4y ago
> I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. It’s been proven by Allen Savory and others, you can check his Ted talk here https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI https://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI Even if lab grown meat is the next best thing since sliced bread it would be a complete climate disaster to not continue, and expand, holistic cattle farming.

midoridensha 4y ago

What you're describing is a fantasy. There simply is not enough natural grassland out there for the entire human race to grow enough meat to eat this way. That's why the Amazon is being chopped down to make more land for grazing. Lab grown meat is a step in a direction that allows us to not use so much land for livestock.