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)
Shifting towards plant-based diets being a better than any form of beef production is very much related here. The promoters of “regenerative grazing” claim that no action is needed because of it, so the baseline is not “what if we consumed the exact way we always did”
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)
Its a non sequiter. Thing A being bad isn’t related to thing B being bad.
Shifting towards plant-based diets being a better than any form of beef production is very much related here. The promoters of “regenerative grazing” claim that no action is needed because of it, so the baseline is not “what if we consumed the exact way we always did”