******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I'm not aware that 'cheap' meats were being defended... But grazing animals and husbandry -- certainly are. Since the core debate lies at the belly of herbivores there is a complication in that some eco-socialists and agro ecologists advocate MORE herbivores being grazed under regenerative/rotational protocols. The argument for this is complicated in way of carbon sequestration and soil renewal, but in locales like Australia the debate is also referenced by the long lost role of megafauna as it relates to bushfires and a drying continent, drought and vegetative cover. This is especially true of the northern section of the continent. While I agree with Hans' argument for mixed agroecology the nub of the debate is that in rangelands -- tallgrass and shortgrass prairies, desert grasslands and shrublands, woodlands, savannas, chaparrals, steppes, and tundras-- which cover something like 50% of the planet's land surface, horticulture --aside from 'grass farming' -- isn't feasible. Intensive grazing may be disastrous, but rotational grazing is not as it replicates the ecological impact of indigenous grazing herds. The site carries a lot of information about this prospect., especially in regards to the consolidation of soil carbon:SOC. The presumption that we can simply replace rangeland grazing with horticulture is not feasible in most of these regions. However, complex integration of grazing and grain production is practical in many areas so long as the stalk is returned to the soil (as in 'straw'). In similar mode, domestic animals should be a source of most of our fertilizers for horticulture and that presumes not only their presence in the landscape, but active management of their wastes. This leads into the ongoing impact of Inorganic Chemical Nitrogenous Fertilizer on the planet -- on waterways, run off, sustainable soil health,plant nutrition, energy use (in their production) and the looming phosphorus shortage. Reducing the discussion to 'meat' -- for or against -- obscures a much more significant reality and one that is disparaged by 'Cowspiracy' obscurantism. But the worse consequence of all is the argument that by not eating meat -- or engaging in husbandry -- we can save the planet from climate change. That trend in the climate change movement is disastrous as it deflects attention from the main drivers of greenhouse gases --energy production, transport ... in effect, capitalism. Instead, the cows are scapegoated. dave riley On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:45 AM, <ehr...@marx.economics.utah.edu> wrote: > The Soil Alliance are very good at criticizing corporate land grabs > which drive small farmers off the land, and other profiteering from > environmental crisis. I fully agree with them there. But I think they > are wrong to defend meat consumption and cheap meat, by the reasoning > that meat must be cheap so that the working class can eat meat. The > planet is simply not big enough to give everybody their daily > hamburgers. The increasing cultural aversion against meat is a good > thing and not a "consumption shibboleth." _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
