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
