Crumb
c/green · by usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml · 15h

Eight reasons regenerative grazing can’t make beef climate-friendly | Project Drawdown

https://drawdown.org/insights/eight-reasons-regenerative-grazing-cant-make-beef-climate-friendly

24 points · 12 comments · view on lemmy.world

12 Comments

usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 15h (11 replies)

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 pts · 15h (10 replies)

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.ml · 7 pts · 15h (9 replies)

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)

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 14h (8 replies)

Its a non sequiter. Thing A being bad isn't related to thing B being bad.

usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 14h (7 replies)

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"

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 13h (6 replies)

You might feel that way, but these kinds of non-sequiter only work on people who start from the premise the argument is trying to lead you to. I mean its up to you to decide what your rhetoric is for, who it is meant to work/ operate on. If you are only interested in convincing those whom already agree with you, I guess this works on you (I realize you didnt write the article)

However, as a scientist and one that actively is doing research, working with other researchers, reviewing others research, collecting field data, building and applying large models to better understand the impacts of land use and land cover, you insisting on including an unrelated to the argument non-sequiter doesn't add to your point; it takes away from it. You can still make your argument without that particular point. And the problem with injecting it, is that it frames you in as being unserious in your argument because "plant based diets being good" has no bearing on the sustainability or lack of sustainability of some other practice. Swap out "beef production" with "dark chocolate" production, and nothing about the non-sequiter's point actually changes.

usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 13h (5 replies)

How does counter scenario we can do instead not have bearing? This is something scientists should be looking at all the time. Ignoring an important counter scenario is having the status quo as an implicit assumption baked into research

Like here's a hypothetical: we model different deserts production and find that A uses 1000 units of some resource but we've found a way to maybe (we're unsure) to get it down to 900 units of some resource. Should we ignore that desert B, C, D use 10, 15, and 20 units of that resource and say we've made A sustainable now?

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 13h

The premise is "regenerative grazing can't be made climate friendly".

Any argument not in support of that premise is a non sequiter. Scenario B being climate friendly has no bearing on scenario A being climate friendly. This is a basic rhetorical mistake the author is making and it's sloppy.

A and B are cars. The premise that I'm making is that car A won't get you to Chicago.

If I make the argument that car B is sufficient to get you to Chicago, this has no bearing on my premise.

Vegetarian diets being "better" has no bearing on the sustainability of beef production. A diet of only dark chocolate would be "worse" for the climate than one which consumes beef. It also has no bearing on the sustainability of beef production.