Eight reasons regenerative grazing can’t make beef climate-friendly
drawdown.org
An influential regenerative grazing movement continues to grow. But here's why the science doesn't back up the purported climate benefits.
  • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
    0·
    1 hour ago

    TL;DR

    1. Beef already has too massive a baseline footprint to build a regenerative future on
    1. Shifting to plant-rich diets results in more food and higher carbon sequestration
    1. Wild ecosystems have higher and more stable soil organic carbon than pastureland
    1. Rain, temperature, geology, and previous land use determine soil organic carbon more than grazing techniques do
    1. Most grazing land is too arid to store meaningful amounts of soil organic carbon
    1. The regenerative case for beef relies on flawed studies without baselines or proper geographic controls
    1. Grass-finished cattle are still not wild ruminants
    1. Beef drives biodiversity loss, and even reducing grazing intensity doesn’t mean ecosystems recover
    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 hour ago

      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…

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
        0·
        52 minutes ago

        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)