AIBU to think most people don’t realise reducing meat will not save the planet and may in fact cause more climate issues.

[TreeLoverr]

I’m a farmer, but before you dismiss this as bias, I don’t have any livestock so do not sell meat.

We own a purely arable based farm and pretty much exclusively grow grain and cereals.

My family had beef cattle on the farm , but they’re sold the heard years before I was born due to lack of profits.

The reason why I say this is due to a few reasons. The soils on our farm are suffering. Especially due to lack of organic content. The soil must be replaced with actual organic matter (like in a garden, it erodes over time and you have to put compost on)

When most farms operated by rotating grazing animals this happens naturally. The grass putting roots down also stops soil erosion, and the dung from the animals too. There are other things that we are just beginning to understand like the important impact of hooves trampling and the delicate micro biome that the cows eating and pooping replenishes.

Just putting dung onto the fields is not enough. Firstly the nutritional balance gets off kilter very quickly (in a way that doesn’t really happen with livestock rotation) and secondly it is difficult to get hold of when you don’t have your own animals.

The alternative to this is fertiliser. Fertilisers are made using fossil fuels. This is far worse for the environment than animals on grassland.

Many farmland is not suitable for cropping. Too hilly/steep, rocky etc. but it is suitable for raising animals, turning otherwise wasted land into human food.

When we have a bad harvest, it often means the crops are not suitable for human consumption. This is then sold for animal feed, turning this into food further down the line as we can then eat the animals. This crop would otherwise have to be destroyed or just left in the field.

But what about greenhouse gases you might be wondering? Animals are PART of the natural cycle. They are not the same as greenhouse gasses released during fossil fuels being burned. Greenhouse gasses are trapped in the soil and plants that they eat, they release and the plants absorb again. plants literally live off carbon dioxide and methane.

How we farm can absolutely negatively affect climate change, but grass fed British beef and lamb is actually important to our ecology and an important food source in order to maximise our environment without destroying it.

Nope, we have solar panels on our barn roofs and an electric car.

oh yes, let’s boast to Australia how we don’t ever water our crops, they need to do the same to achieve net 0 water like us. 🫠

You cannot answer because it doesn’t suit your worldview.

I'd really recommend reading it. He's a divisive figure but the book is so well researched, about half of it is just references to scientific studies.

Also, grazed land stores much less carbon than woodland and will have far less wildlife. Historically much of the UK would have been woodland but we've cut almost all of it down for agriculture.

Many scientists disagree with the notion of climate change? Really? Can you name any reputable ones?

Because I thought that the consensus of scientists who believe that man made climate change is real is somewhere over 99%.

Also, when you say that cows are "part of nature", can you point to a wild population of cattle? Because as far as I'm aware, our current domesticated cattle have no wild relatives at all any more. The closest- the aurochs- were hunted to death in the 16th century, and they were very different beasts to the cows that humans have bred.

Edited to add some data: sorry, it's Wikipedia and AI 😳 with sources, because I'm knackered.

So, "99-100%" of climate scientists believe in man made climate change.

And, here's a fact for you: 60% of the entire biomass of life on earth is cattle. What do you think the naturally occurring percentage would be if bovines weren't farmed, and were instead a natural part of a functioning ecosystem, complete with apex predators?

can you point me in the direction of the nutritional evidence of your statement please? Having studied with the researcher who stated that fats are bad for the heart back in the 80s (leading to the low fat diet ‘craze’) but now concedes new evidence is to the contrary, I’d love to read the latest evidence that you have to support your statement (assuming I can find a reply bc I'm on the free version of mn and nothing is easy!!)

you mean mono crops like vegetables and grain? Cattle can be grazed on grassland with amazing diversity.

and yes cows compacting the soil IS good for it actually.

Nah, it would patently be like trying to convince a reform voter that Farage is actually a massive bell-end.

I'm not wasting my time trying to convince you that you are wrong. Experience has shown me you can't argue with zealots.

I'm just pointing out to anyone else on the thread that you are talking nonsense, and that the studies that show that are very easy to find.

Have you heard of grassland fires? More likely to happen in the uk.

at this point, it’s not just about storage it’s about carbon draw down.

if left for multiple years? Ungrazed? So you’re advocating actually for rewinding and not for intensive cattle grazing. You can’t have it both ways!

your points are comprised entirely of disingenuous and confused comparisons. Yes, grasslands and soil plays an important role in carbon storage and wildlife. But that doesn’t meant that it is BETTER or more effective than woodland for storage and carbon drawdown or biodiversity, just because it fits the economic logic that you have . Who considers grasslands more secure and resilient? Secure from what? Resilient to what?
Is this science talking or lobbies with ££ at stake like NFU? RASE? Big agribusiness?

I’m talking about the health debate around meat here, which is a different topic.

and how do they eat grass differently than their ancestors?

Damn, couldn't add the images to the original post.

good to know, but grassland is still an excellent carbon store and is considered more stable due to 90% being underground and therefore more resilient.

both woodland and grassland will have its own ecosystem, woodland doesn’t necessarily have more.

humans cannot farm woodland, but we can grassland. Woodland takes land out of food production.

What do you think of the Knepps rewilding project?

Unless you’re talking about the African savannah or the Mongolian steppe, i think you’ll find that woodland in the uk is more biodiverse than grazed grassland. Grass for grazing is basically a monocrop, it’s bonkers to try and argue otherwise.

There's more of them. Millions of times more of them. And they don't form part of an ecosystem, they don't (largely)graze like their ancestors, they're kept in "improved" fields that have been fertilised to favour monocultures of calorie rich grass that crowd wildflowers out.

That claim has been widely debunked.

Agree. The OP is just a pile of misinformation.

Not always the case, however, still more diverse than a field of grain.

This is just a nonsensical word salad.

According to who?

which is better for biodiversity, a grass field for grazing livestock or a field of wheat?

Look at the poll, though. People will suspend all critical thinking and swallow any old bollocks if it suits them.

Humans are too selfish to survive climate change.

But livestock typically also have to be fed (e.g. in the winter). So you're still growing monocrops to feed the animals. Which is far less efficient than just feeding the humans.

Nonsense, there has been a massive ,well funded animal agriculture lobby at recent COPs.

It’s not a zero sum game.

you’ve come here trying to argue that somehow beef cattle are good for climate change.

both intensive arable agriculture AND cattle farming can be bad for climate.

cattle farming is worse for the climate than wheat farming because of methane. Wheat does not burp and shit methane. Wheat, in the Uk, does not need more land to feed wheat. Cows need more land to feed because they need hay when they’re not grazed. Grass fields are still sprayed with pesticides and fertiliser. They still need tractors run over them to cut turn and bale the hay. Hay production and cattle feeding is not neutral. It’s a high energy input.

Quite. Honestly I fucking despair at the state of this country’s capacity to exercise any form of evidence based critical thought that isn’t informed solely by parties (like big ag, big oil, big Nigel) who have nothing but money and power to lose in their aggressive lobbying.

the ingrainedness and deeply messy disinformation, even in this thread just makes me want to weep. And this from people who are supposed to understand and love the land? Farmers have it so hard, but the lack of critical thought around globally real and locally felt issues like climate change just makes me crazy.

Because the stores are mostly in the roots and the soils it’s more protected from fires than woodland.

because the stores are in the roots/soil less is released when cut than trees.

no wildlife thrives alongside livestock.

farmers are not in it for the big money. Farmers are not your enemy.