-and that means that regenerative ag makes us more susceptible to super bacteria..how? That's what I'm wondering. We don't go all in with feedlots for environmental reasons, and they're not doing us any environmental service. Feedlots are not regenerative agriculture.

It's the feedlot that you think makes us more susceptible, isn't it? On account of how they're cramped and run on antibiotics? Well..regenerative ag doesn't do that, and regenerative ag does have a lower carbon footprint than other methods - that metric is what qualifies something -as- regenerative ag.

---

-as an addendum, this is one of the more amusing bits of food consciousness I've had the pleasure of observing. It started out with oil companies pointing the finger at cattle producers, and then those feedlot owners pointing at the damned dirty enviro-hippies and their happy cows.

The Grand Nudger Wrote:and that means that regenerative ag makes us more susceptible to super bacteria..how?

I didn't claim it does. What exactly is regenerative agriculture? Is it something to do with giving grass-fed cows probiotics, so that they emit slightly less methane? I've seen a few texts on the Internet about that. I will remain skeptical about it. Claims that one has discovered a way to sustainably feed billions of people with meat don't have a stellar track record.

The Grand Nudger Wrote:It started out with oil companies pointing the finger at cattle producers, and then those feedlot owners pointing at the damned dirty enviro-hippies and their happy cows.

Well, I guess people are very biased against believing it's the grass-fed cows that are primarily responsible for global warming (or at least had been until around the early 2000s), rather than factory farming or cars. For about the same reason, people are biased against believing burning wood causes lung cancer and is environmentally probably less acceptable than burning coal, and certainly less environmentally acceptable than burning natural gas.

You said exactly that -

Quote:Well, my perception is that there is relatively little written about fighting super-bacteria. In contrast to that, that there is a lot written about not contributing to this minor problem called global warming. And, to make things worse, the exact policies that make animal agriculture contribute less to global warming generally make us more susceptible to super-bacteria.

B-mine.


The "exact policies" that make animal agriculture contribute less to global warming, are called regenerative agriculture.  Regenerative agriculture doesn't make the claim that it can feed billions of people beef (quite the opposite).   It makes the claim...and has demonstrated that it can..produce beef with fewer carbon emissions, or even reverse the cycle of increase. The relative methane emissions between pastured and feedlot cattle is only one point of data in gross carbon footprint.

It's still unclear why you believe that regenerative agriculture makes us more susceptible to super bacteria.  The contention that we are made more susceptible is derived from feedlot conditions and practices, not regenerative conditions or practices...even in your own formulation. It's actually a great argument in it's own right -for- regenerative practices.. in that they not only improve the situation with regards to global warming, but also do not contribute to antibiotic resistant bacteria - or at least contribute much much less.

They might not make as much beef...but I fail to see why that would be an issue for vegetarians or vegans. Responsible production has a known cost. No free lunches.

(April 2, 2020 at 11:41 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You said exactly that -

Quote:Well, my perception is that there is relatively little written about fighting super-bacteria. In contrast to that, that there is a lot written about not contributing to this minor problem called global warming. And, to make things worse, the exact policies that make animal agriculture contribute less to global warming generally make us more susceptible to super-bacteria.

B-mine.


The "exact policies" that make animal agriculture contribute less to global warming, are called regenerative agriculture.  Regenerative agriculture doesn't make the claim that it can feed billions of people beef (quite the opposite).   It makes the claim...and has demonstrated that it can..produce beef with fewer carbon emissions, or even reverse the cycle of increase.  The relative methane emissions between pastured and feedlot cattle is only one point of data in gross carbon footprint.  

It's still unclear why you believe that regenerative agriculture makes us more susceptible to super bacteria.  The contention that we are made more susceptible is derived from feedlot conditions and practices, not regenerative conditions or practices...even in your own formulation.  It's actually a great argument in it's own right -for- regenerative practices.. in that they not only improve the situation with regards to global warming, but also do not contribute to antibiotic resistant bacteria - or at least contribute much much less.  

They might not make as much beef...but I fail to see why that would be an issue for vegetarians or vegans.  Responsible production has a known cost.  No free lunches.

Then we agree on that. As I said in the video, we can have a reasonable discussion about whether, from a sustainability standpoint, it would be better to give up meat completely or to decrease its consumption by 90% or so.

From a sustainability standpoint, it would be best to produce any of our food, of any kind, in a sustainable way.

The bit about not eating meat or reducing consumption by 90% is informed by some other ideological principle you hold - not sustainability. FWIW, there's currently no model for regenerative agriculture that doesn't require livestock of some kind. This is down to the fact that our choices are severely limited between two fundamental options when it comes to production. Industrial chemistry or animals. No free lunch.

Let;s consider a world where beef was produced through exclusively regenerative methods, and that there was less of it. People would still eat as much of it as they want and could afford - and there's no reason from sustainability not to do so. It would be the latter that effected consumption. In that world the producer is getting more money for his product - so that's a win..and the cows are healthier and happier, so that's a win, and climate change is being addressed, so that's a win, and the routine use of faltering antibiotics has been eliminated, so that's a win.....

....but -some- consumers might not be able to afford all the steak they want.

Most of us are already in that position.

(April 2, 2020 at 1:58 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Industrial chemistry or animals.  No free lunch.

But aren't chemical fertilizers (and pesticides) much more ecologically acceptable and safer than natural ones? It's well-known that organic farming uses more dangerous pesticides.
Besides, natural fertilizers are usually dead plants, because it's forbidden to use dead animals or animal excrement as fertilizers, because they might contain dangerous bacteria that can attack both humans and those animals, and which can survive being outside of host for some time. For similar reasons, though not quite as strong, it's safer to use synthetic fertilizers rather than dead plants.

(April 3, 2020 at 5:09 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(April 2, 2020 at 1:58 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Industrial chemistry or animals.  No free lunch.

But aren't chemical fertilizers (and pesticides) much more ecologically acceptable and safer than natural ones?

No, and no.

Quote:It's well-known that organic farming uses more dangerous pesticides.

Organic and conventional farms use pretty much the same pesticides - which is always fun to explain to someone no matter what kind of farm you're operating.  It's probably important to note that regenerative and organic are not interchangeable, as well.  Regenerative agriculture is geared towards reducing the environmental cost of production - and in some cases they would not qualify or even attempt to qualify as organic.  

Quote:Besides, natural fertilizers are usually dead plants, because it's forbidden to use dead animals or animal excrement as fertilizers, because they might contain dangerous bacteria that can attack both humans and those animals, and which can survive being outside of host for some time. For similar reasons, though not quite as strong, it's safer to use synthetic fertilizers rather than dead plants.

I'm assuming that you're referring to compost when you mention dead plants, which isn't entirely accurate but close enough. Those plants still had to grow..and be fertilized, somehow. It's not generally forbidden to use manure (laws may be different where you are), there's a time to harvest restriction on raw manure.  Synthetic fertilizers also have time to harvest restrictions on account of toxicity.

(As do pesticides, or..really..any application of anything whatsoever to any crop intended for human consumption - they even have return intervals - an amount of time before you can walk in the rows after application, safely. Exposure risks and concerns are orders of magnitude greater for ag workers than for the end consumer.)