or feed me swiss or spinach chard as well.I'm with the worms and bugs, on that one. Give me a good Romaine or spinach any day, and keep the Kale for decoration only.
or feed me swiss or spinach chard as well.I'm with the worms and bugs, on that one. Give me a good Romaine or spinach any day, and keep the Kale for decoration only.
We could go back to grass. The concept of renewable energy (solar/wind) farms integrated with grazing livestock that can actually be finished on grass as opposed to corn is an idea that is gaining traction. Minimal need for tractors, diesel, corn and chemical fertilizers, but then again big ag tends to make more money the more input heavy the system is.
All that grain has to be grown somewhere so the land use is quite similar and I would tend to believe that properly managed pasture which requires minimal fertilizer inputs and tillage is better for our soil, water, and wildlife. With proper grazing management less land can support more livestock and utilizing multispecies grazing is even more efficient.Often it seems that doing things in a more 'natural' way is better. Certainly feeding cows grass rather than grain seems better for the cows and more natural.... but the numbers tell a different story.
Switching feedlot cattle from grains to grass would vastly increase the land use footprint AND the amount of methane emission of beef production. Beef grazing and feed production already uses more land than producing food for direct human consumption, and is responsible for global warming forcing comparable to all the worlds cars.
Increasing both by a multiple would be absurd unless you had another earth available and wanted to accelarate global warming.
Grazing cows under wind turbines and solar panels doesn't make grazing green. And the land already being grazed is a far larger area than would be needed for wind and solar in a future 100% renewable scenario.
The fertilizer input for corn is massive on a CO2 emissions scale I’d like to see that broken out.All that grain has to be grown somewhere so the land use is quite similar and I would tend to believe that properly managed pasture which requires minimal fertilizer inputs and tillage is better for our soil, water, and wildlife. With proper grazing management less land can support more livestock and utilizing multispecies grazing is even more efficient.
I do understand your concern about emissions from cattle and some early research definitely did point this way. However, newer research tends to find that these early results were not entirely accurate and do not take into consideration the difference in the methane released by cows (biogenic methane vs the methane produced by cars, tractors, fertilizer plants).
All in all I would rather have 1000 acres of well managed, carbon sequestering pasture with healthy soils and minimal runoff than 1000 acres of corn.
All that grain has to be grown somewhere so the land use is quite similar and I would tend to believe that properly managed pasture which requires minimal fertilizer inputs and tillage is better for our soil, water, and wildlife. With proper grazing management less land can support more livestock and utilizing multispecies grazing is even more efficient.
I do understand your concern about emissions from cattle and some early research definitely did point this way. However, newer research tends to find that these early results were not entirely accurate and do not take into consideration the difference in the methane released by cows (biogenic methane vs the methane produced by cars, tractors, fertilizer plants).
All in all I would rather have 1000 acres of well managed, carbon sequestering pasture with healthy soils and minimal runoff than 1000 acres of corn.
AgreedThe fertilizer input for corn is massive on a CO2 emissions scale I’d like to see that broken out.
Not really based on the WOP guys they always seemed very salesman like to me. I try not to suck up to either side we definitely need feedlots we don't have the genetics to finish most of our animals on grass and they do allow for a significant amount of animals to utilize a smaller space. But negating the land use and carbon impact of getting the feed to the feedlot seems to make this argument lopsided.If your reference more recent research being that grazing is green, please provide some sources.
If you are talking about White Oak Pastures, that project has been throughly debunked... with huge inputs of external feed and biomass, highly degraded land can be converted to productive pasture, and that process can sequester some carbon into the soil... for 5-10 years before saturation. Their own peer-reviewed paper shows just this, and led them to scale back their previous, unfounded PR claims to be producing 'green, sustainable beef'.
Not only does WOP have higher emissions over time than feedlots (not sustainable), it has a productivity in beef/acre far less than conventional grain and feedlot practice, which would require far more land use if adopted broadly.
Here is their peer reviewed paper: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full
Check out figure 2:
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/A...4984-HTML-r2/image_m/fsufs-04-544984-g002.jpg
Their claims to being carbon negative depend on that line fit of very noisy data. Their claim to being sustainable is based upon that line continuing upwards forever, and not plateauing after 10 years. And remember they were only able to sequester that much carbon bc they were working with highly degraded land to begin with.
Of course, they use General Mills millions of dollars to produce mountains of press releases and slick infographics, which get circulated by the Beef Board for their PR purposes, so everyone believes what they want to believe... that grazing and beef by extension can be 'green'.
Analysis of global warming impacts of grain versus grass feeding DO take the impacts of feed production into account.But negating the land use and carbon impact of getting the feed to the feedlot seems to make this argument lopsided.
Because high input tillage and based operations will eventually deplete those acres both in terms of nutrients in the soil and the topsoil itself. We simply do not have the topsoil to support what we are doing. And yes, poorly managed ruminants utterly destroy the ground via compaction, overgrazing, ruining ponds and creek banks, destruction of soil biology, and habitat loss. When I drive and see "pasture" that is putting green short and showing signs of these things it seriously irks me.Why not raise food in the way that minimizes total land usage (and global warming at the same time) by intensively farming the smallest possible area (with synthetic fertilizer inputs), and then leaving the maximum remainder of the land in a natural undeveloped state?
While I might be misinformed, I am under the impression that cattle grazing operations generally degrade landscapes compared to wild ruminants.
Because this practice is carbon intensive, it destroys the soil leading to mass erosion of both water and windborne, in some cases it can seriously mess with the underlying aquifer, and it is a system of ever-increasing dependencies on fertilizers and pesticides as the soil degrades. One might as well just grow hydroponically to reduce some of these impacts. The soil is a living entity, not a neutral growth medium. Regenerative practices are more sustainable with less impact.Why not raise food in the way that minimizes total land usage (and global warming at the same time) by intensively farming the smallest possible area (with synthetic fertilizer inputs), and then leaving the maximum remainder of the land in a natural undeveloped state?
People in the plains states surely have a different perspective, but I always chuckle when any east-coaster looks at a farm and reminisces about nature or open land. Cleared farm land on the east coast is anything but natural, it took a lot of energy and man-hours to clear those natural forests!Why not raise food in the way that minimizes total land usage (and global warming at the same time) by intensively farming the smallest possible area (with synthetic fertilizer inputs), and then leaving the maximum remainder of the land in a natural undeveloped state?
The UK used to be all forest (think Robin Hood), and it is now nearly all pasture.People in the plains states surely have a different perspective, but I always chuckle when any east-coaster looks at a farm and reminisces about nature or open land. Cleared farm land on the east coast is anything but natural, it took a lot of energy and man-hours to clear those natural forests!
":Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"And by then our 'livestock' will be bred to non-sentience, grown under controlled conditions or in a fermenter, or most folks will be vegan, or enjoying delicious 'air protein' cuisine originally developed on Mars, or other things we can't imagine.
I’m sure a roaming heard of buffalo degraded the landscape for weeks/months. At this point what are we considering a “natural” landscape? Conservation reserve program took a lot of acres out of production and planted thr with “natural” prairie grasses. But if there was an elm tree within sight they started to really take hold.Sure. Everyone like natural-like landscapes.
But the problem is that natural landscapes are much less productive than intensively farmed ones, acre for acre. We ran out of land to feed the world with natural-like landscapes around 1950, and now produce 6X that much food for humans and our livestock.
Why not raise food in the way that minimizes total land usage (and global warming at the same time) by intensively farming the smallest possible area (with synthetic fertilizer inputs), and then leaving the maximum remainder of the land in a natural undeveloped state?
While I might be misinformed, I am under the impression that cattle grazing operations generally degrade landscapes compared to wild ruminants.
Actually, the opposite. There is clear evidence that they improve the landscape. By trampling, wallowing, pooping, etc. they create a rich habitat and improved soils. As bison forage, they aerate the soil with their hooves, which aids in plant growth, and disperse native seeds, helping to maintain a healthy and balanced ecosystem.I’m sure a roaming heard of buffalo degraded the landscape for weeks/months.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.