You must log in or register to comment.
TL;DR
- Beef already has too massive a baseline footprint to build a regenerative future on
- Shifting to plant-rich diets results in more food and higher carbon sequestration
- Wild ecosystems have higher and more stable soil organic carbon than pastureland
- Rain, temperature, geology, and previous land use determine soil organic carbon more than grazing techniques do
- Most grazing land is too arid to store meaningful amounts of soil organic carbon
- The regenerative case for beef relies on flawed studies without baselines or proper geographic controls
- Grass-finished cattle are still not wild ruminants
- Beef drives biodiversity loss, and even reducing grazing intensity doesn’t mean ecosystems recover
Mmm…
1 sure
2 not part of the argument
3 depends
4 depends a lot
5 no.
6 so does most science. Welcome to science.
7 ok.
8 it depends. Even in high biodiversity area disturbance is a patchwork and in some places, abandoned agriculture lands become monocultures if invasives. The degrees matter here.
Anyways, here is from a paper I just got into publication on the matter…
I am not sure I follow what you mean that shifting to plant-based diets is not part of the argument? Many/most of the promoters of “regenerative grazing” claim that it negates need to do any shifts towards plant-based diets (which is the most problematic claim in my view)
