Obvious solution in our face, we fund research to preserve AGW causing industries

[TimCallahan]

. . . (mega-snip) . . .

Quote, Tim Callahan:
Since it is unlikely you will convert the rest of us to a vegan way of life, what do you hope to accomplish with this thread?

World domination.

Fine. If all you can respond with is sarcasm, I see no reason to respect your answers or to waste further time on this thread.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Fine. If all you can respond with is sarcasm, I see no reason to respect your answers or to waste further time on this thread.

Does my goal being world domination change anything we've discussed? No.

 

[TimCallahan]

Does my goal being world domination change anything we've discussed? No.

I asked you a direct, serious question: What do you hope to accomplish with this thread? Your answer, "world domination," is sarcastic and a bit snotty. I would assume that you wanted to open our eyes to a clear and present danger. You seem to be dealing with two issues. One is that you think eating meat is evil because it involves killing animals. The other is that the livestock industry is a huge source of greenhouse gases.

The first issue really belongs in the religion and philosophy forum. The second issue is a good deal more pragmatic, and any reduction in meat consumption, especially in beef and pork consumption, should be important to you. Instead, you call such a reduction a cop out. Frankly, while reduction of beef consumption is important, I think I can make a case for the high consumption of petrochemicals by agriculture as also being a major source of greenhouse gas. What we may need to talk about is another technological revolution need to reform agriculture in general.

I can also make a case for human activities (particularly those practiced by people with a high standard of living) in general being a major source of greenhouse gas and would stress that birthrate reduction, even to the point of negative population growth is an answer to greenhouse gas reduction.

Massive planting of new trees across the world is yet another important strategy.

So, I ask you again, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread? Give me another sarcastic, snotty answer, and I'll conclude I can ignore you with no qualms of conscience.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I asked you a direct, serious question: What do you hope to accomplish with this thread? Your answer, "world domination," is sarcastic and a bit snotty.

Discussing my motives has nothing to do with discussing the topics, claims, statements, etc. at hand. You asked an indirect, personalising question. Light hearted redirection is hardly an affront.

You seem to be dealing with two issues. One is that you think eating meat is evil because it involves killing animals. The other is that the livestock industry is a huge source of greenhouse gases.

No. This thread was started about the latter and every post I have made has been addressing the latter.

The first issue really belongs in the religion and philosophy forum.

Which is why I never brought it up.

The second issue is a good deal more pragmatic, and any reduction in meat consumption, especially in beef and pork consumption, should be important to you. Instead, you call such a reduction a cop out.

No, you are making an assumption that pragmaticism "should be" important to me, and also that your solution is in fact the one that will work (i.e. reduce anthropogenic GHGs) the best. (Side note, people calling half-measures and compromises automatically "pragmatic" is a pet peeve of mine.) Yes, I called "reduction" a cop out at the very beginning, and I have explained why I think so in many posts following. Including directly to you.

Frankly, while reduction of beef consumption is important, I think I can make a case for the high consumption of petrochemicals by agriculture as also being a major source of greenhouse gas. What we may need to talk about is another technological revolution need to reform agriculture in general.

This would be more compelling if agriculture didn't go into feeding farmed animals and wasn't already calculated into giving the 51% number. As it is, this is a classic red herring.

I can also make a case for human activities (particularly those practiced by people with a high standard of living) in general being a major source of greenhouse gas and would stress that birthrate reduction, even to the point of negative population growth is an answer to greenhouse gas reduction.

No, someone already tried and I pointed out, all in this very thread, why that is not a solution or correct analysis.

Massive planting of new trees across the world is yet another important strategy.

Super Red Herring. Talking about turning down your thermostat or buying a Prius would be equally irrelevant. Incidentally, I've also mentioned how farmed animal grazing contributes to deforestation.

So, I ask you again, what do you hope to accomplish in this thread? Give me another sarcastic, snotty answer, and I'll conclude I can ignore you with no qualms of conscience.

This from the same person who wrote:

20% is as damaging as 80%? Did you, by any chance, flunk math?

Similarly, while you are making a huge stink about this, you are avoiding tackling some of the very wrong arguments you've been making so far.

Here's the problem with that study that now seems glaringly obvious. Before European colonists and their descendants began spreading across the North American continent, vast herds of bison roamed the American plains. Yet, they don't seem to have contributed to the accumulation greenhouse gases, even though the article you quoted said that grass-fed free-range cattle contributed to such gases far more than those confined in feed lots.

Compounding this problem is that still today vast herds of wildebeest, zebra, large antelope and even elephant freely graze on places like the Serengeti Plains. Are the animals of the African megafauna, too, a major source of global warming? If they are not, then free-ranging grass-fed cattle are also not major contributors.

This is silly red herring, comparable to people who point out that people exhale CO2 all the time. The quote in the OP clearly stated that it was referring to 51% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

No, it's not a silly red herring. In all cases we are talking about large herds of grass-fed mammals. If the bison did not constitute a great source of carbon dioxide, then why would free-range, grass-fed cattle constitute such a source?

Whether or not wild large herbivores were a significant GHG contributor has no bearing on if large herbivores bred by humans and used in animal agriculture are a significant GHG contributor. You are reaching to make a connection that does not follow and that you have no data for the base premise. It is just irrelevant.

Or:

Wikipedia is not a source. That chart comes from the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 3.2, fast track 2000 project. I can't even find the 3.2 version of this document, and the 4.2. My quote in the OP clearly stated it was in response to FAO 2006 numbers, and how and why it expanded on them. The out you should be highlighting is that people are just doing grazing "wrong" and thus the plant devastation could be lowered. The other website is an education website that cites a book for the images. I can't find any more info than that. I am puzzled why you find these two almost random sources more credible than a study, but no matter.

I'm equally puzzled as to why you see the study you cited as more credible than others.

You proposed (well, linked to an image I had to dig for the source for) one "other", a decade out of date. The one I have used the studies and data and was cited by the UN.

I've tried to keep things very evidence based and rational. I've provided multiple studies for each of my claims. Where is your evidence that New System X would be an actual solution?

 

[TimCallahan]

It's interesting. You state that population reduction won't effect global climate change.You cite as evidence that this won't work one of your own posts. In fact, since we're talking about anthropogenic climate change, fewer people means less consumption of fossil fuels, less demand for food, etc. It amazes me that you would dismiss this as an important factor.

The same applies to reforestation. Massive plantings of saplings - a mix of fast-growing and slow-growing trees, will certainly serve as an important carbon sink. Again, this is not a red herring.

You also seem to dismiss higher fuel efficiency as a solution to emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet, if we burn less fuel, we produce less greenhouse gas. Conservation through energy efficiency across the board is going to be a big factor in reducing greenhouse gas.

Conversion from fossil fuels to a solar / nuclear mix is also important. The less fossil fuel we burn, the less carbon dioxide emitted. Right now, if a series of small scale reverse osmosis solar-powered desalination plants were installed along the California coast, it would not only ease our water crisis, but reduce the amount of energy used to move water along the California Aqueduct, which uses as much electricity as the city of Los Angeles.

And, yes, reduction of meat consumption is also important. Since it is unlikely that most people who consume some meat will convert to a strictly vegan diet, I would thing you would welcome a sizable reduction in meat consumption. Yet you have dismissed this as a cop-out.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The same applies to reforestation. Massive plantings of saplings - a mix of fast-growing and slow-growing trees, will certainly serve as an important carbon sink. Again, this is not a red herring.

Massive reforestation is an order of magnitude too small. Grassland soils on the other hand are an order of magnitude larger sink. They just might be large enough.

Since the best way to manage a grassland as a carbon sink is with grazing herbivores, the problem is also the solution.

CAFOs = soil degradation and release of CO2 on an epic scale larger than even deforestation.
Grass fed model = Potential SOC sink an order of magnitude larger even than reforestation.

Vegans don't have to eat that meat. But standing in the way of people attempting to restore grasslands and the C sink in grassland soils is counter productive in the extreme.

If you really really feel the need to reforest, then first fix the soil with grassland (yes that means animals too, they are an important part of that biome), get the carbon up to somewhere around 8-10% SOC at depth with grassland management, then plant a forest if it is appropriate to the climate. Because the carbon sink in the forest biomass is 6 times larger than a grassland biomass. This way you get both....maximised SOC and maximized biomass.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's interesting. You state that population reduction won't effect global climate change.You cite as evidence that this won't work one of your own posts. In fact, since we're talking about anthropogenic climate change, fewer people means less consumption of fossil fuels, less demand for food, etc. It amazes me that you would dismiss this as an important factor.

It is as if you didn't read what I wrote and are just coming away "amazed" at my "interesting" position. I explained exactly why the neo-Malthusian notions are useless. You have merely repeated your initial, simplistic, unsubstantiated claim. There is nothing intriguing or curious about this either.

The same applies to reforestation. Massive plantings of saplings - a mix of fast-growing and slow-growing trees, will certainly serve as an important carbon sink. Again, this is not a red herring.

It is precisely a red herring. And either way you haven't even attempted to establish this simplistic scenario as viable (the most favourable studies I've read are tepid endorsements at best).

You also seem to dismiss higher fuel efficiency as a solution to emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet, if we burn less fuel, we produce less greenhouse gas.

I don't remember that I did, but I would dismiss it if you were using it as a red herring.

Conservation through energy efficiency across the board is going to be a big factor in reducing greenhouse gas.

Exactly. And bringing up all these other examples from other parts of the board is a red herring.

Since it is unlikely that most people who consume some meat will convert to a strictly vegan diet, I would thing you would welcome a sizable reduction in meat consumption. Yet you have dismissed this as a cop-out.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Massive reforestation is an order of magnitude too small. Grassland soils on the other hand are an order of magnitude larger sink. They just might be large enough.

Since the best way to manage a grassland as a carbon sink is with grazing herbivores, the problem is also the solution.

CAFOs = soil degradation and release of CO2 on an epic scale larger than even deforestation.
Grass fed model = Potential SOC sink an order of magnitude larger even than reforestation.

Vegans don't have to eat that meat. But standing in the way of people attempting to restore grasslands and the C sink in grassland soils is counter productive in the extreme.

If you really really feel the need to reforest, then first fix the soil with grassland (yes that means animals too, they are an important part of that biome), get the carbon up to somewhere around 8-10% SOC at depth with grassland management, then plant a forest if it is appropriate to the climate. Because the carbon sink in the forest biomass is 6 times larger than a grassland biomass. This way you get both....maximised SOC and maximized biomass.

Keep the Holistic Management woo to the other thread.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Keep the Holistic Management woo to the other thread.

Management techniques may or may not be optimised, but the effect of the grazer/grassland biome on the carbon cycle in the soil is not in dispute.

Grasslands and their soils can be considered sinks for atmospheric CO2, CH4, and water vapor, and their Cenozoic evolution a contribution to long-term global climatic cooling ...
Grasslands have only about one-sixth the biomass
of woodlands, but the biomass is dwarfed by
an order of magnitude more C in grassland soils[1]

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Management techniques may or may not be optimised, but the effect of the grazer/grassland biome on the carbon cycle in the soil is not in dispute.

That's nice and all, but we both know that is not what I was referring to. Incidentally, here is an on topic study whilst you keep trotting out that one.

Over 3 billion hectares of lands worldwide are grazed by livestock, with a majority suffering degradation in ecological condition. Losses in plant productivity, biodiversity of plant and animal communities, and carbon storage are occurring as a result of livestock grazing. Holistic management (HM) has been proposed as a means of restoring degraded deserts and grasslands and reversing climate change. The fundamental approach of this system is based on frequently rotating livestock herds to mimic native ungulates reacting to predators in order to break up biological soil crusts and trample plants and soils to promote restoration. This review could find no peer-reviewed studies that show that this management approach is superior to conventional grazing systems in outcomes. Any claims of success due to HM are likely due to the management aspects of goal setting, monitoring, and adapting to meet goals, not the ecological principles embodied in HM. Ecologically, the application of HM principles of trampling and intensive foraging are as detrimental to plants, soils, water storage, and plant productivity as are conventional grazing systems. Contrary to claims made that HM will reverse climate change, the scientific evidence is that global greenhouse gas emissions are vastly larger than the capacity of worldwide grasslands and deserts to store the carbon emitted each year.

Linky.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That's nice and all, but we both know that is not what I was referring to. Incidentally, here is an on topic study whilst you keep trotting out that one.



Linky.

Interesting article. Much much better than the previous propaganda blogs you posted before. It explains where grazing systems have failed pretty well. I would ask you this though. How does the hypothesis in the paper explain where HM and other grazing systems have worked?

You don't want to be like the unfortunate scientist back in 1904 giving an excellent speech on why man can't fly, when the Wright Bros fly over head.

Anyway the paper does a good job of explaining the circumstances when environment shapes biology, but fails completely in explaining the circumstances when biology shapes environment. And that should be no surprise when you note the ties to Joy Belsky.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Interesting article. Much much better than the previous propaganda blogs you posted before.

I truly missed this fallaciousness from the other thread. Thank you.

It explains where grazing systems have failed pretty well. I would ask you this though. How does the hypothesis in the paper explain where HM and other grazing systems have worked?

I suspect in the same way that biologists explain flying pigs.

You don't want to be like the unfortunate scientist back in 1904 giving an excellent speech on why man can't fly, when the Wright Bros fly over head.

I won't let it or reruns of Dr. Oz keep me up at night.

Anyway the paper does a good job of explaining the circumstances when environment shapes biology, but fails completely in explaining the circumstances when biology shapes environment. And that should be no surprise when you note the ties to Joy Belsky.

And you are still failing to scientifically justify the claims of Holistic Management. The thread you are looking for is still that way ---->

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And you are still failing to scientifically justify the claims of Holistic Management. The thread you are looking for is still that way ---->

I am not. No need. You posted a better source this time. Not a great source, but a better source. Read what it says.

the scientific evidence is that global greenhouse gas emissions are vastly larger than the capacity of worldwide grasslands and deserts to store the carbon emitted each year.

So they conclude that the benefit of grazing cattle is not large enough, nor possible on a large enough area of the planet, to offset AGW. It's possible they are right. AND????

Just because the car you bought might not go 100 mph, and the best you can get it to go is 60 mph, doesn't mean you can't move forward at all.

We both know CAFOs are a huge emissions source. Eliminating them and replacing them with a animal husbandry model that sequesters carbon, even if it might or might not be enough to completely reverse AGW, is still a step in the right direction.

Personally I happen to agree that it isn't completely proven HM can completely reverse AGW. I think it is likely, others say unlikely to benefit more than 10-30 %. It's still a benefit, unlike CAFOs which are actually helping to cause AGW.

This study shows the natural wild grassland/grazer biome does force climatic cooling. [1]

This study shows that on HM land, mimicking that lost wild biome can have a similar effect of increasing C in soils (reducing greenhouse gasses)[2]

Here is another study that confirms that effect and even confirms the effect is better than no grazing at all. [3]

This university extension guide explains how to use the effect to benefit other wildlife as well. [4]

This university extension guide explains how a farmer can use it at a profit, requiring no massive multi trillion dollar subsidies from society. [5]

This USDA case study shows how it can be integrated with crop production to turn those soils into a net carbon sink as well as increasing crop yields. [6]

This article by a well respected science writer shows that the scientific community, rather than regarding it as woo, actually is taking the concept very seriously. [7]

So yeah, the current models of animal husbandry most commonly used around the world are part of the problem, a major part as you eloquently argued in your OP. However, that doesn't mean that the only solution is to eliminate all domestic food species of animals. There is another solution, and that is changing the way they are raised to something that instead of degrading the environment, restores it.

 

[TimCallahan]

It is as if you didn't read what I wrote and are just coming away "amazed" at my "interesting" position. I explained exactly why the neo-Malthusian notions are useless. You have merely repeated your initial, simplistic, unsubstantiated claim. There is nothing intriguing or curious about this either.



It is precisely a red herring. And either way you haven't even attempted to establish this simplistic scenario as viable (the most favourable studies I've read are tepid endorsements at best).



I don't remember that I did, but I would dismiss it if you were using it as a red herring.



Exactly. And bringing up all these other examples from other parts of the board is a red herring.



Pete and Repeat were in a boat.

What you seem to be missing is that multiple strategies are necessary to attack this major problem. So, reduction in the birthrate is important, even if it were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 5%. Likewise, reforestation, even if it only reduces carbon dioxide by 5%, is still worth doing. Certainly vastly increased fuel efficiency would have a major impact on carbon dioxide emissions, However, let's say they only reduce greenhouse gas by 10%. Again, switching from coal-fired and other fossil fuel powered electric generation to a mix of solar and nuclear plants would have a major impact on carbon dioxide emissions. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that, too, only results in a 10% reduction in emissions. All of these taken together, then, would result in - on a hypothetical low end - a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This is not a red herring.

Bear in mind that I am not dismissing your arguments about meat production as a major source of greenhouse gas. However, since you are not going to convert the many humans across the world who eat meat into vegans, persuading them to eat less meat should be an achievable and laudable goal.

All this said, I'm sure the only response I'll get from you is that everything I've said is a red herring or holistic woo - though converting from fossil fuels to a photovoltaic / nuclear mix hardly sounds like airy-fairy new age fluff to me. Since I'm relatively sure this will be your response, this will likely be my last post on this thread. I'm happy to let you have the last word.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What you seem to be missing is that multiple strategies are necessary to attack this major problem.

Not at all. You seem to missing this by pointing to other (random) strategies as an excuse for not properly addressing this one.

So, reduction in the birthrate is important, even if it were to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 5%.

Stop. I posted why this was nonsense. It is just not possible, unless you are suggesting super-mass genocide. And from what orfice did you obtain that number? I certainly have seen nothing posting in the thread suggesting such a thing.

Likewise, reforestation, even if it only reduces carbon dioxide by 5%, is still worth doing.

And?

Certainly vastly increased fuel efficiency would have a major impact on carbon dioxide emissions, However, let's say they only reduce greenhouse gas by 10%. Again, switching from coal-fired and other fossil fuel powered electric generation to a mix of solar and nuclear plants would have a major impact on carbon dioxide emissions. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that, too, only results in a 10% reduction in emissions. All of these taken together, then, would result in - on a hypothetical low end - a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This is not a red herring.

Yes. It is. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Just as reduction from the fuel efficiency has no bearing on reduction from refrigerator efficiency. We do not have the luxury of swapping one for the other.

Bear in mind that I am not dismissing your arguments about meat production as a major source of greenhouse gas. However, since you are not going to convert the many humans across the world who eat meat into vegans, persuading them to eat less meat should be an achievable and laudable goal.

Again, I am not making a campaign slogan here. You and I are not bound by the popularity of ideas, and neither does the popularity influence the responsibility. Secondly, you haven't demonstrated that promoting reduction would be a more successful strategy.

All this said, I'm sure the only response I'll get from you is that everything I've said is a red herring or holistic woo - though converting from fossil fuels to a photovoltaic / nuclear mix hardly sounds like airy-fairy new age fluff to me. Since I'm relatively sure this will be your response, this will likely be my last post on this thread. I'm happy to let you have the last word.

You can stop acting affronted and victimised. My comments about holistic woo were clearly directed at the person promoting it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You can stop acting affronted and victimised. My comments about holistic woo were clearly directed at the person promoting it.

The only one spewing woo is you. The very idea that humans would or even could eliminate all animal food products world wide is a ridiculous idea. You want to do it fine. But humans as a species? No way.

Holism is a part of the scientific method. link The science is certainly not woo. It is the concept of systems thinking. The whole agricultural system, which is part of the whole ecological system.

I don't live in a vacuum. I realise that certain people who advocate holistic medicine also advocate things proven to be woo like homeopathy. But we are discussing agriculture, not medicine. Your lame attempt to attach by connotation the woo in medicine to animal husbandry is a logic fallacy. The scam being advocated is by you. Simple fact. It wouldn't be so bad, except your proposal would cause huge suffering to billions of human beings. That makes the idea not just a scam, but actually evil. We in the more developed countries of the world could do with less meat, even in many cases eliminate it entirely. That does not apply to all humans on the planet, certainly not humans as a species. That leaves us with the alternative of changing the way we raise those food animals. Yes the current way most animal husbandry is modeled, especially in developed countries, is very harmful. But the solution isn't to eliminate animal husbandry, the solution is to reform agriculture from a net carbon emissions source to a net carbon sink.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am not. No need. You posted a better source this time. Not a great source, but a better source. Read what it says. So they conclude that the benefit of grazing cattle is not large enough, nor possible on a large enough area of the planet, to offset AGW. It's possible they are right. AND????

Just because the car you bought might not go 100 mph, and the best you can get it to go is 60 mph, doesn't mean you can't move forward at all.

We both know CAFOs are a huge emissions source. Eliminating them and replacing them with a animal husbandry model that sequesters carbon, even if it might or might not be enough to completely reverse AGW, is still a step in the right direction.

Personally I happen to agree that it isn't completely proven HM can completely reverse AGW. I think it is likely, others say unlikely to benefit more than 10-30 %. It's still a benefit, unlike CAFOs which are actually helping to cause AGW.

This study shows the natural wild grassland/grazer biome does force climatic cooling. [1]

This study shows that on HM land, mimicking that lost wild biome can have a similar effect of increasing C in soils (reducing greenhouse gasses)[2]

Here is another study that confirms that effect and even confirms the effect is better than no grazing at all. [3]

This university extension guide explains how to use the effect to benefit other wildlife as well. [4]

This university extension guide explains how a farmer can use it at a profit, requiring no massive multi trillion dollar subsidies from society. [5]

This USDA case study shows how it can be integrated with crop production to turn those soils into a net carbon sink as well as increasing crop yields. [6]

This article by a well respected science writer shows that the scientific community, rather than regarding it as woo, actually is taking the concept very seriously. [7]

So yeah, the current models of animal husbandry most commonly used around the world are part of the problem, a major part as you eloquently argued in your OP. However, that doesn't mean that the only solution is to eliminate all domestic food species of animals. There is another solution, and that is changing the way they are raised to something that instead of degrading the environment, restores it.

I feel like you just browsed your Word document of sources to toss out. Actually, I am fairly certain you did because you already gave me that first one and most of those aren't on topic. I don't want you to post sources that you already have and try to rope them into this topic. I want things on this topic. For example, one study on multi-paddock systems in Australia (of which I can cite you many with the opposite conclusion, and a study exploring the environmental factors for these different conclusions) that shows carbon sequestration potential says nothing about the overall GHG (methane methane methane) emissions. You gave a lot of pieces (and non-pieces) to try to make a picture you wanted to see.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I feel like you just browsed your Word document of sources to toss out. Actually, I am fairly certain you did because you already gave me that first one and most of those aren't on topic. I don't want you to post sources that you already have and try to rope them into this topic. I want things on this topic. For example, one study on multi-paddock systems in Australia (of which I can cite you many with the opposite conclusion, and a study exploring the environmental factors for these different conclusions) that shows carbon sequestration potential says nothing about the overall GHG (methane methane methane) emissions. You gave a lot of pieces (and non-pieces) to try to make a picture you wanted to see.

Very interesting link. But why would you try to defend your position with a link that states this?:

Our results, which suggest a future focus on why C3 vs. C4-dominated grasslands differ so strongly in their response of SOC to grazing, show that grazer effects on SOC are highly context-specific and imply that grazers in different regions might be managed differently to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

That study shows the same thing I have consistently stated. Grazed properly, grasslands can be seen as a carbon sink and help in the fight against AGW caused by greenhouse gas emissions. (while feeding people at the same time)

What in that study says we should eliminate all grazing by domestic species because they always are emissions sources???

More importantly, since the study backs up some of Savory's claims, and doesn't actually refute any, why do you think it somehow is a reason to eliminate all domestic grazing animals from the face of the planet, whether grazed properly or not?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Again, for someone arguing for holistic management you are looking at a very narrow comparison (the carbon on soil for multi-paddock vs exhaustive grazing). Whether one is better than the other in those certain conditions in Australia for that one metric has little bearing because it lacks all the data we need.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Again, for someone arguing for holistic management you are looking at a very narrow comparison (the carbon on soil for multi-paddock vs exhaustive grazing). Whether one is better than the other in those certain conditions in Australia for that one metric has little bearing because it lacks all the data we need.

There may not be data for every grassland, in every climate, in every soil on the planet, but there is plenty of data to prove--->>>>
1) CAFOs are a net emissions source.
2) Pasture raised don't have to be a net emissions source if raised properly to local conditions.

That's all I need to show to prove it is unnecessary to exterminate domestic food animals to extinction world wide, only remove them from the CAFOs and start respecting them for what they are...an important part to both humans food supply and an important part to the nutrient, carbon, water cycles for a farm.