******************** 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 glad the article was posted. Clearly there *has* been increase in awareness about regenerative agriculture though I think it's a lot lower than the "22% of the population" the writer states in his essay. It is not being talked about much on the left specifically or the population more generally but it has increased in the last year a bit, I think. If you take the largest internet and network and newspaper resources and run a search for the term "regenerative agriculture" it shows up barely at all. So there is that... Secondly, despite his silly missives about "100% renewable energy" and other myths, the essay was overall very good. I have no doubt he's read material written by Allan Savory, heard David Montgomery speak and read various leftist comments and essays by folks like Dave Riley, Elena Garcia and myself on this topic. He makes an error I wanted to point out though. He wrote "If regenerative food, farming and land use – which is essentially moving to the next stage of organic farming,* free-range livestock* grazing and eco-system restoration...". He made this common mistake. Holistic cattle management, that is as he correctly wrote above this "Grazing and pasturing animals on grass, and more specifically using a planned multi-paddock rotation system" is the **opposite** of "free range grazing". Free range grazing is what has destroyed land throughout the Sahel in Africa and in the western states of the U.S. Everything about regenerative agriculture is about *planning*, and mob-grazing. Before European settlement, animals did NOT "free range". They were constantly on the move. Constantly being herded by natures herders: wolves, cougars, coyotes, and all manner of predator, including nomadic human groups. The idea of a "happy cow" in nature is oxymoronic to the extreme. All ruminants generally lived in a constant state of semi-stress in *nature*. Lastly, on the "9%" of GHG emissions. I didn't even realize "Big Ag" had come up with this number. Defining what the "agricultural industry" is, is not easy. I tend to agree with the author that this industry's contribution to GHG emissions much higher, probably 30% or more but I'd be guessing. The problem is the lack of data in terms of breaking down what he writes about: food processing, fossil fuels used for tractors and farm equipment, trucks to bring food to the processors and then the processed food to market. Andy of this that is used in broader categories such as "industry" and "transportation" then has to be deducted from those categories. Not to mention chemical inputs onto the soil and plants and determining how much of THAT goes into the atmosphere. That is why the numbers vary so much. Just do a google search for "how much does agriculture contribute to greenhouse gas emissions?". There is no question that Big Ag wants to keep that number in the single digits for obvious reasons. I doubt anyone really believes it. David Walters _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
