Totally ridiculous! Check out the Biogenic Carbon Cycle!

I love the diverse perspectives of this discussion. Very informative and helpful discussion

What about the Muslims? Muslims have many children, and the EU will be predominantly Muslim in the next twenty to thirty years. They don't care about feminism, veganism, or sustainability. Don't forget that feminists usually fail to produce viable offspring.

New favourite channel. So many questions answered and dots connected, thank you 👌

What everyone seems to miss is that methane, by far the most influential greenhouse gas produced by livestock, is made by the microbes from plant material that the cows eat. In order to grow, plants have first taken up CO2 from the atmosphere. And because methane in the atmosphere readily breakes down back into CO2 (halflife of 12 years), its a cycle! Yes, CH4 is way more potent than CO2 but as long as the amount of cattle does not increase world wide and the feed they eat also does not change, the concentration of ruminant methane reaches an equilibrium and does no longer contribute to climate change but is neutral! In fact, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have been stable in the not so distant past for a couple of years but are now increasing again, mainly because of natural gas leaks which, unlike ruminant derived methane, is not part of the short carbon cycle.

Video full of political propaganda that never be wrong and cannot be corrected.

The emissions caused by growing feed crops for livestock. Regenerative grazers do not feed any supplementary feeds, the animals eat only forage at pasture, so including emissions from feed crop production massively skews the figures.

Climate change is BS .

If you make a poll on whether to prioritize economic growth vs environmental protection, it's likely that second one wins. But clearly not against eco-modernism, which aims to improve both. Having strong economy and thriving ecosystem at once. Good conversation!

Private jet owners need you to eat less meat, dairy and eggs - please comply generously 😁

What a bucket of Bull. This kind of stuff should be criminal.

Most of the soy being fed to livestock can be viewed as a byproduct of the soya oil used in ultra processed human food. Without this pathway, soya meal would become a waste product.

Where does Sara's figure for the $12tn societal damage cost of the global food system come from?

Land used for grazing takes 37% of the world's ice free land. Stop the grazing and promoting of consuming animals and that land could be rewilded to sequester enough crbon to reverse climate change. See Dr. Raos published paper: Animal Agriculture is the leading cause of climate change.

Perfect solution.

Great example of begging the question.

An excellent summary

Cows & Bulls = Mature males weigh 450-1,800 kg (1,000-4,000 pounds) and females weigh 360-1,100 kg (800-2,400 pounds) The average Stegosaurus was about 30 feet long, between 9 and 13 feet tall, weighed about 5.5 tons (11,000 pounds). Methane would have also been produced by other herbivorous dinosaurs, most notably members of the Thyreophora (shield bearers), such as Stegosaurus.

Is agroecology a solution or an agenda? No matter how much sociologists and lawyers prance around in white coats, their arbitrary political imposition goes against any interpretation of the scientific method. Agro-ecology agendas are trapping African farmers in poverty New study reveals: "That’s the finding of the first continent-wide meta-analysis of conservation agriculture experiments in Africa, and it threatens to completely up-end the dominant paradigm around agro-ecology. In recent years, agro-ecology has come to be seen as a virtual panacea in sub-Saharan Africa. Aid agencies, churches, development NGOs and United Nations agencies all now tie their support for resource-poor farmers to an explicitly agro-ecological agenda. NGOs are keen to offer anecdotal evidence for how these approaches can help smallholder farmers in Africa. Yet scientifically rigorous empirical evidence for the benefits of agro-ecology - also termed “conservation agriculture” - has so far been lacking. Until now, with the publication of a paper titled “Limits of conservation agriculture to overcome low crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa” in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Food. Scientists, who analyzed 933 observations across 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa comparing conservation agriculture with conventional cropping, found that agro-ecological approaches do not substantially improve productivity and do not therefore help address the food insecurity of smallholder farmers. This is not because conventional tillage-based farming is better than conservation agriculture - in fact, as these results show, they are equally bad - but because the advocates for agro-ecology also tend push an ideological agenda that rejects scientific innovations such as biotechnology, hybrid seeds, mechanization, irrigation and other tools that might more reliably increase productivity for smallholder farmers in Africa. The study authors, led by Marc Corbeels, a specialist in sustainable intensification based at CIMMYT in Nairobi, Kenya, found that conservation agriculture did not improve yields in cotton, cowpea, rice, sorghum or soybean. Maize yields did show a 4 percent increase, but only if glyphosate pre-emergence herbicide treatments were applied, something which is strictly forbidden by agro-ecology advocates. In practice therefore, agro-ecology is likely to have no benefits at all to most farmers in Africa. In fact, it could even have negative effects. This is primarily because soil improvements from conservation agriculture require the use of crop residues as mulches. In dry conditions these can help retain moisture in the ground by reducing evaporation. However, crop residues are much more valuable to smallholder farmers as fodder for cattle and other livestock animals, which produce meat, milk and manure and are therefore much more important for safeguarding food security than a slight increase in maize yield. In the arid conditions of much of sub-Saharan Africa, there is simply no spare biomass to use in conservation agriculture. This is not to say that no-till systems have no benefits anywhere in the world. In fact, reduced or conservation tillage approaches have been widely adopted across North and South America, where they help to reduce soil erosion, conserve moisture and sequester carbon. Indeed, most of the carbon benefits of genetically modified crops - which removed 24 million tonnes of CO2 in 2016 - arise because herbicide tolerance traits allow farmers to adopt no-till practices. geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/03/viewpoint-agro-ecology-agendas-are-trapping-african-farmers-in-poverty/

All movements start with causes and good intentions,” Mugwanya noted. “At its core it’s to promote taking care of social justice - I wouldn’t fight such a cause. The problem comes in when movements get so radical in terms of their ideology. What I’ve seen in Africa, the dominant version of agroecology to me as an ideological extension of the well-fed, privileged folks in in the West who run to places like Africa and use all these narratives like we don’t want Africa to go through the problems of the West, forgetting the contextual problems that Africa has. I’ve seen the problems you have here [in the US] and food is not one of them. Where I come from, I can tell you, I know what it means to go without a meal a day. We need to have a very honest and nuanced conversation about what kind of agroecology are you trying to promote? And are you really caring about the needs of the farmers, getting them out of poverty, helping them have more food, or are you caring for your ideology?” Mugwanya said that he wrote a critique of the dominant version of agroecology, which “seems to me to be a proxy word for fighting industrial practices.” However, he feels it “diverges from the scientific definition of agroecology, which doesn’t say you can exclude anything” in its practice. “Those with the louder voices, the ideological side, tend to push a point of view that’s very conservative,” that restricts options and can create additional burdens on women. Genetic Literacy Project dot org Oct 5, 2020

Buyest at it's best, shining light on the matters in imbalance. I expect higher standard if you want to provide expert message. TABLE generator, why aren't you responding to valid comments below? Bait click.

For this research to have even a scrap of legitimacy it should have been benchmarked against the thousands of years of stable atmospheric CO2 levels up to the industrial Era when humans started burning fossil fuels on a massive scale. How did that all that carbon we are burning now, get sequestered? We had huge herds of ruminants during all that period. Did all the cows start farting more all of a sudden? This is not research. it is propaganda!

Total rubbish! An integrated approach with 24 hour rotational grazing and well designed Agroforestry is one of the only ways to restore our land and atmosphere. This is a huge difference from growing corn and soy and shoving the cows into feedlots. Please try and make a real case with real data!

This is antiwhiteism. No white guilt

Many thanks to Holly Cecil for providing English subtitles and to the Association végétarienne de France (not affiliated with the FCRN) for providing French subtitles. You can also contribute subtitles in another language by clicking the three dots under the video and then "Add translations". an anti grazing video giving thanks to a vegetarian association, well that's transparency at🤣 least!!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣😅😅🤣😂🤣😅😂🤣😅

pfft, immediately assumes forest clearing, and ignores reduced pesticide, more jobs, nutrient density of meat/dairy, combing with poultry free ranging, increased wildlife with reduced impact as pastures are not a mono culture of soy or maize, water retention, no phosphate run off, and then adds using land for animal feed(however that was interpreted)...talk about cherry picking!!!

Maravilhoso

In short: *GO PLANT-BASED* Why do we keep playing MENTAL GYMNASTICS instead of accepting the facts?

Wildlife are not raised and killed by the billions as babies. Raising animal to be killed is exploitive. Nature is telling to stop.

There are billions in subsidies means it is not sustainable. Thank you for the program. I wonder what you think now that COP26 is done.

Ecologist: small farms are less efficient than the CAFOs, who save due to crowding and transportation costs, etc. There is plenty of data already to make good choices and stop animal agriculture.

Wildlife are not bred like livestock are. Killed as babies, more bred killed as babies, a very different amount methane.

I recommend the published report that 87% of green house gases are due to the animal agriculture and the opportunity cost of the deforestation caused by the animal agriculture. Even the father of climate change, James Hansen, said the best thing an individual can do is stop eating beef. According to the IPCC, 43% of ice free land is used for feeding animals. Almost 40% of that used to be forested. By simply stopping animal agriculture we can restore forests and grasslands and sequester enough carbon to take our greenhouse gases back to the 1700s.

Just because some have protein deficiency does not mean livestock is needed. There is the more sustainable, less resource using plant protein.

Some carbon went into the roots(not eaten) some into exudates on the roots for microorganisms (not eaten) some into meat, bone, manure (Most of which feeds microorganisms and stored as organic matter) wool in sheep, milk etc…… how dose the methane burped out equal the same amount of co2?? You cant make mass! How can the carbon be in all these places and still be back in the atmosphere?? Sequestration. If you don’t plough it up it’s stored for ever, problem solved 👍

Millions of bison grazing for millennia and the climate was fine

𝓅𝓇o𝓂o𝓈𝓂

I am the 32nd person to view this video.

Where did my prior comments go?

I watched the video almost in its entirety and learned nothing new ! Don’t even bother!

Propaganda - they won’t talk about regenerative agriculture tell later they are first discussing carbon and the grazing animals being the problem. How very on par with the agenda these institutions are shoving down everyone’s throat but what did i think would be discussed here ? Just more of the same thing and it’s not good for the people. It’s good for a few and the rest will suffer , bravo scientists your doing so much for the future of humanity.

Hundreds of years ago millions of bisons roamed almost all over America. Is not reasonable that even when this grazing animals were eating carbon levels remained stable, I do believe this video is biased instead of looking for grazing animals that were already in the environment. Another thing is that carbon even with regenerative grazing has a carbon loss because cows are being degraded elsewhere. With more carbon in the ground, more cover in the soil the carbon uptake increases dramatically.

Why is organic matter 4% in a pasture and 1% in your yard?

A newly planted forest is a net carbon emitter for the first 20-25 yrs of its life so present policy of paying multinationals millions of pounds of taxpayers money to greenwash is contributing to world carbon emissions for that period as well asremaving valuable food producing land.If livestock only produce 11.6% of global emissions maybe we should be looking at the near 60% growth in human population in 70 yrs who are the real polluters.

Grassland carbon contains more carbon then all the forests on the planet. Wow how was all that carbon sequestered? Perhaps through deep rooted, (in excess of 5 metres), perennial grasses that would not exist if not for symbotic migrating herbivores. Suggesting that we leave these great sinks of carbon alone is an astonishing comment because it does not take into consideration that many of the great bread baskets of the world are grasslands, which are now devoted to monocultures that have irrefutably resulted in significant carbon losses and soil degradation. I just finished reading a UN scientific paper on the ability of deep rooted grasslands in Colombia capable of sequestering 100 to 504 Tg C/yr. Is that the others you refer to in your video. I suggest if you want to challenge the academic merit of an apposing argument it would be only fair to be more specific then others and list these academic institutions as you so have kindly left yours.

Interesting topic.

03:50 Dr. Garnett: "I'd like you to just kind of set up your stall in what you feel the real causes of the livestock problems we face today are and what your visions of a bad livestock future and a desirable livestock future might look like." Really, those are the options? This false dichotomy presupposes that livestock have any upside at all, the baseline for folks like these who defend the Eurocentric privilege of meat consumption (using cultural arguments -- Eastern or Western -- as justification). The problem with livestock is the APPETITE of the "problem solvers" themselves, including Dr. Garnett who struggles mightily defending her flexitarian choices. At 01:27 she says, "[the livestock issue] is an area where scientific understanding is fraught contested and the upshot of this is that the evidence gets pulled and pushed in different directions." Makes me think of when she coauthored a 2011 article (in a feed journal, nonetheless) with the livestock representatives from the FAO to debate Dr. Robert Goodland, a climate and environmental assessment specialist of impeccable reputation. "Scientific vigour" to Herrero et. al. seems to be "one and done" since none of the dozen authors (several of questionable authority and bias) responded to Goodland's rebuttal. I can think of no greater setback to mitigating livestock emissions than the orchestrated dismissal of Goodland and Anhang's research, especially since today's understanding reveals their calculations to be conservative and the GWP100 metric to be revealed as "creative carbon accounting" politically motivated to deprioritize methane emissions. The removal of bias remains a key element in the Scientific Method. While the fossil fuel industry offers up much analysis towards tweaking their emissions and managing their interests "beyond petroleum," why on Earth would we ever value their opinions or trust their research? The parallels with the livestock industry are profound, with the exception that the flavour of electrical power from coal or renewables are indistinguishable to to the consumer. The privileges of meat consumption keeps the future of livestock on *The Table.*

Loving this! THANK YOU

I’m confused! So the paper admits that soil carbon sequestration works but it might not work forever? So we shouldn’t do it at all?. And we shouldn’t convert grasslands to croplan but we should eat more crops and less ruminats?

A genuinely crucial in achieving food security and people’s food sovereignty is: Free Online JC PURE free birds 🐦 🦢 🦅 growing fruits 🍍 🍊 🥑 🥭 🍇 🍌 🍎 🍉 🍒 🍑 🥝 vegetables 🥦 🥕 🥗 🥬 🥔 🍆 🥜 🪴 🌱 🎃 🫑 🍅🍜 🧅 🍄 🍝 🥗 🥒 🌽 🍏 🫑 🌳 🍓 🍊 🥥 🌵 🍈 🌰 🇧🇧 🫐 🍅 🍐 🫒 Youniversity