Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: People Still Don't Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change [View all]2naSalit
(87,112 posts)88. Not really...
If you read the abstract whose link you posted which I pasted in below, does not back up your argument and all the studies cited at that site are from the 1970s and 1980s and all of the studies were conducted in a greenhouse or controlled environment and the only reference to a natural environment mentions the Serengeti and no place else. And there was no consensus on any of the results. There were no studies using actual cattle grazing, and especially in the west.
Abstract
The potential benefits of herbivory to plants have been debated over the last decade. Several investigators claim that removal of or damage to the productive, absorptive, or reproductive tissue of plants by herbivores benefits some plant species by increasing their net primary productivity, seed production, or longevity, and that these changes increase plant fitness and result in the evolution of herbivore-plant mutualisms. Although more than 40 papers have been cited as presenting experimental evidence in support of these benefits and mutualisms, strong evidence is lacking. Increased plant biomass as a result of tissue removal has been found only under growth-chamber conditions and in cultivated crops. Although herbivores may benefit certain plants by reducing competition or removing senescent tissue, no convincing evidence supports the theory that herbivory benefits grazed plants.
The truth is, there is very little forage for cows in the west, period. The soil profile is very thin in most areas grazed out here which means damage can take decades to centuries to revive if they ever do. Cattle trash riparian zones (stream banks, flood plains) and the depth of the soil profile is key to revival. And the cattle take food that wildlife depend on which can cast large areas into negative trophic cascades and bring on a total collapse. And I'm taking fish, birds, ungulates and predators are all adversely affected just by cows and the ignorance - sometimes by choice - of humans. cattle have no place in the west, period. All of our wildlife problems spin around the axle of the cattle industry in the west.
It's a simple concept easily described by asking two simple questions: In grasslands east of the Rocky Mountains there is a question of How many cow/calf pairs can you feed one this one acre of grass?
From the Rocky Mountains and west of them the question is: How many acres will it take to feed one cow/calf pair?
It's not like there's really a thriving cattle industry out here
https://www.westernwatersheds.org/public-lands-ranching/
&feature=youtu.be
Looking for the juried research but it'll take me a little time to find the online links to the studies I have in mind... studies from the last ten years.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
People Still Don't Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change [View all]
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
OP
Well, for millennia, that meat wasn't raised as an "industrial product," nor as much of it consumed
villager
Apr 2016
#54
If you have a human population of less than one billion, that doesn't matter
FLPanhandle
Apr 2016
#60
Sure, let's ignore everything else until a 70% die-off! Steaks and SUVs all around!
villager
Apr 2016
#65
Actually, the extent of yours seems to be: "What can I say to get myself off the hook?"
villager
Apr 2016
#75
How much of what they consume is irrelevant? The nature of economic exploitation
RadiationTherapy
Apr 2016
#57
Restaurant offerings are part of the problem considering how many people eat out in the USA
Person 2713
Apr 2016
#2
People still don't get the link between chemical GMO industrial agriculture and climate change
AxionExcel
Apr 2016
#3
Considering how much land we've converted to fields, fueled with synthetic fertilizer
NickB79
Apr 2016
#12
the main problem is the methane produced by the massive numbers of livestock
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#21
there are lots of things that can be addressed, but eating less meat is a simple and easy way to
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#19
This is actually what caused my stint in vegetarianism, which kicked my arse
hereforthevoting
Apr 2016
#27
there are also horrible religious moements who think they need to over-produce babies
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#40
"The right of the people to keep and bear children shall not be infringed."
GliderGuider
Apr 2016
#44
People who reproduce are deliberately and consciously infringing on you rights?
Marengo
Apr 2016
#48
The post I responded to seemed to be suggesting the right didn't exist in the present...
Marengo
Apr 2016
#43
I don't know about your numbers-- it's a tricky calculation-- but I agree with your basic conclusion
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#39
the problem is massive factory animal farming, not just some cows grazing on natural land
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#83
Conversely, I switched to an almost-completely meat-based diet three years ago
GliderGuider
Apr 2016
#84