Just found the above chart backing up what I have been saying for years.
Global warming is a wholly natural event, if humanity disappeared tonight, global warming would still happen.
No I’m done with you, you couldn’t grasp how grassland is better than desert for biodiversity. And even when the other poster explained it simply your still waffling.
Its like asking how is water better for us than Coca Cola.
I think whoever is telling you that soil doesn’t sequester enough carbon isn’t being very accurate in their measuring.
we have bogs in ireland that are known carbon sinks. That’s why we have banned cutting turf!
Not at all. I'm asking what the expected impact is of regenerative agriculture on global warming. Carbon sequestration is mostly done by the ocean, so it seems like regenerative agriculture won't have much impact on CO2 and hence global warming.
Given that you've not answered any questions that I've asked, I'm not surprised (and a video from a seemingly non-credible source doesn't count!)
Sigh, so within an Irish context, how will you restore grasslands in such a way that restore biodiversity and yet still allow for the mass production of both meat and milk? Will you replace existing arable land with grassland? What about other areas such as the likes of mountain commonage or bogland?
How will you alter existing grasslands to allow for biodiversity restoration and on what evidence-led basis will you make those changes?
Are you asking is regenerative agriculture going to cause more damage than the airline, chemical, oil, mining, cars, electricity, gas, fashion, manufacturing, plastic pollution etc??
Do you believe there will be impact on global warming from regenerative farming? If so, how much?
I honestly couldn’t bring myself to answer that question!
Perennial ryegrass is optimised for industrial farming and with its shallow mass of roots near near the soil surface it's designed to soak up as much chemical fertiliser as possible. It wins because the fertiliser companies led the science and because it was cheap and easy for a while. Diverse swards were the norm in the pre industrial era. Multispecies is a considerable improvement and that change alone supports much more biodiversity, reduces the need for artificial fertiliser, improves water quality and its deeper roots support more climate resilience, plus a host of other benefits.
I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for more cows in an industrial farming setting. I would support more cows farmed regeneratively without the need for chemical inputs or grain shipped half way round the world. I'm not perfect and I'm trying to wean myself off that system and learn from those who have.
"those grasslands must of sequestered some amount of carbon"
O.K... how much did those prarie grasslands with their giant herds of bison sequester? And, what was the human population then, versus now?
Go on, tell us in what way fields of grass will help biodiversity. I'm looking at a field full of lush green perennial ryegrass now which undoubtedly is benefitting the farmer's milk production. But tell us how exactly has the farmer improved biodiversity by planting that?
Really? Are you serious!! Im actually speechless for once.
So more grassland. And this helps biodiversity how?
Well by that logic we would have been wiped out thousand’s of year’s ago!
Because we no there was billions more animals on the planet before we wiped them out. Gosh the air must have been toxic!!
The prairie land’s in the United States was maintained for thousand’s of year’s by tens of million’s of bison & buffalo etc
those grasslands must of sequestered some amount of carbon!!
Whoevers doing the sums on carbon sequestration of soils & water needs to go back and get re educated!!
Million more cows will not be offset this way. Domestic farm life exponentially increasing isn't gonna end up sequestered by the grassland... And once again, you won't be able to prove your claim it would. 🤣
No, lets start with taking them out of feedlots first and factory farm’s. Put the animals back on the land. And we will need more animals, millions more in those areas of the earth desertifying. No doubt about it.
Your only looking at one part of a much bigger picture
Except you've advocated for increased cattle farming for example. So you don't follow the science.... The poster you're responding to also doesn't claim this is going to reverse global warming.
Well we should have been wiped out thousands of year’s ago going by the logic that soils don’t sequester enough carbon.
And when the soil is fixed, the oceans will start to fix also, there’s billions of tonnes of silt coming from land into waters and ocean’s every year!!
And again you are only looking at it from one side, the glass is half full not empty with this approach.
Absolutely spot on. We’re going to have to keep soil covered, were gonna have to stop using fossil fuels at some point or else run out.
And the world’s grasslands need animals too keep it healthy.
Yep I don't object to that conceptual work around biodiversity etc, the problem I have is when people claim it's the cutting edge solution to global warming. Sample below of this attitude. And also have to emphasise it's on par with a lot of agricultural approaches based on my reading, it's impact on global warming etc just tends to be grossly exaggerated.
Hahahahaha now out comes the conspiracy theory insults!! The usual response dished out when people like you have nothing else to say after being schooled. Whats next, racist?
Get your coat and leave you haven’t a clue about anything, you only think you do.
This is what I mean about this topic being so divisive, I agree with most of what you're saying, but we seem to be on completely different wavelengths.
If you take a quick flick through this video, it might help see where I'm coming from.
It shows how man has wiped out local Sea Otter populations, and loss of a keystone species had a knock on effect, whereby the Sea Urchin population destroys the kelp forest and leaves a barren landscape behind where not much else grows. When the otters come back, the kelp can regrow, when the kelp regrow it sustains a diverse and thriving ecosystem.
This is re wilding in action, but Savory's methods work on the same basis. The human's occupy the predator role like the otters, the cows are like the urchins and the kelp is like the carbon that comes back in to the system, above and below ground, once the ecosystem comes back into balance.
So even if the amount of carbon sequestration was minimal, (and I agree that Savory's methods alone won't be enough, and that carbon sequestration is limited in the top horizon once the soil carbon reaches its limit, based on the local climate and plant species, although it can layer up) it would still be worth doing for the increases in biodiversity, improvements in water quality, and increases in food production and food security, especially in parts of the world most vulnerable to climate change.
I agree, we are burning too much oil, and polluting the planet with fossil fuel derived plastics and toxic chemicals. That has to change. But the desertification caused by over grazing and industrial agriculture is also probably having a bigger impact on the climate than the rise of CO2 alone.
Savory's methods, and regenerative agriculture generally, should be part of the solution.
'you haven't watched the videos i linked'; the classic rejoinder of a conspiracy theorist.
So how are we gonna solve that problem?
Only way i can see is to change our management and with education and maybe advancement in technology
Where did i say carry on as normal?
Absolutely 100% no doubt burning fossil fuel’s aren’t doing anybody or the planet any good. Im all for clean energy.
but biodiversity loss is going to continue and so will climate change!!
Yes there is nothing contraversial about that - but it ignores the also serious issue of man man greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Everything function’s as wholes. They can’t be separate issue’s.
When its human management that’s ploughing & burning billions of acres of land every year for the centuries that has to be having a negative effect.
When the sun is shining 365 days a year on bare soil (nearly 60% of the planet) in some of the hottest place’s we have, that HAS the be contributing to the planet warming!!
You've claimed a land management technique will solve global warming and that we should carry on as normal otherwise. Your can't prove that it will resolve global warming but you're accusing everyone else of being pig ignorant?
you’ve offered nothing only criticism.
No solutions
Havent watched any of the video links
Only pig ignorance and it’s the exact reason we are fcuked i think because of narrow minded thinking
Separate issues. Climate change is contributing to some desertification - but as you say poor land management account for other areas.
Apologies if my simple questions are a bit too much for you.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)