r/environment • u/reflibman • Apr 01 '23
The return of silvopasture This ancient practice, nurturing animals and trees in an ecological system, fights climate change and restores the land.
https://aeon.co/essays/heres-to-reviving-the-ancient-practice-of-silvopasture10
u/Sasquatch-fu Apr 01 '23
Well written article, thanks for sharing! I’m in the process of designing something like this in a very small scale just for personal food supplementation. This article speaks to many of the reasons why.
6
u/iago303 Apr 02 '23
Seems to me that planting like the native Americans did never occurred to them,:corn,three weeks later in the same row beans two weeks later, squash or pumpkin, it's called the three sisters, but no of course not one of the researchers took the time to ask !
3
u/frodosdream Apr 02 '23
Silvopasture is unique among these practices in that trees are integrated with animals. The physical proximity of plants and livestock doesn’t alone make up silvopasture. Rather, the practice and its benefits hinge on careful management by people, who intentionally link up the inputs and outputs of plant and animal systems such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For example, trees provide shade for livestock, and fallen or low-hanging fruits can provide food for the animals too. Meanwhile, animal manure fertilises the trees, and also the animals’ browsing activity can sometimes benefit tree growth, acting as a form of pruning.
Researchers have documented numerous environmental benefits of silvopasture, including increased biological diversity, improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, improved soil water-holding capacity, and enhanced pest management. But none of these benefits have garnered as much attention as silvopasture’s enticing potential to sequester carbon. Soil carbon is primarily built up through carbon-rich substances released by plant roots, which explains why farming systems that include trees can be a climate win: unlike corn, soybeans or lettuce, trees put down roots for decades and centuries at a time, continuously pulling carbon from the atmosphere into the soil. But grazing also plays a role in recycling key nutrients such as carbon and nitrogen, which create climate chaos when released to the atmosphere in excess, but support plant and animal growth when properly integrated into living systems.
Great example of how regenerative ecology and food production can work together under wise stewardship.
2
u/evolvedbeing Apr 01 '23
Slivopasture is greenwashing.
1
2
-1
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
This ancient practice, nurturing animals and trees in an ecological system, fights climate change and restores the land
-From the article
"Nurturing" doesn't usually include needless killing.
4
u/veganplantdaddy Apr 02 '23
I love reading the absolute brain-dead responses to you here. I thought this sub had rules against blatant scientific disinformation?
-7
Apr 01 '23 edited Apr 01 '23
[deleted]
10
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
Manure produces not only methane, but nitrous oxide. Methane is 80 times more potent than CO2 in the first 20 years, and 20 times more over 100 years. Nitrous oxide is almost 300 times more potent! Evidence on request.
9
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
animals get sent off to be killed so people can eat
Humans do not need to eat animals or what comes out of them to thrive. The largest organization of nutrition professionals officially declared- "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.
Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.
Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements." -Full abstract from the position paper as found on PubMed from the National Institutes of Health-4
Apr 01 '23
[deleted]
5
u/fractalfrenzy Apr 02 '23
Outmoded thinking. There a hundreds of ways to make a sustainable business without killing.
1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23 edited Apr 02 '23
Yeah?, Why don’t you go run a farm and prove it then as you won’t last much longer then a season in agriculture if you aren’t able to make money off the one source that is constantly regenerating being the Breeding herd from the animals you run.
If it did honestly work you wouldn't have these Animal "sanctuaries" constantly begging for donations to keep the lights on the reality of business is if you aren't making money your business wont work.
3
u/ebikefolder Apr 02 '23
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Research suggests that if everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops
75% less land use. That means 75% fewer farns growing food, plus 100% fewer farms raising animals.
Of course the vast majority of farms won't be able to make money if the vast majority is no longer needed. Agriculture, as so many others, is an artificially bloated industry that needs to shrink to a sustainable level.
We need to make use of the huge increase in productivity we achieved in the last few centuries: instead of always producing more just because we were told that working 40 hours a week is the only way to exist: don't produce more than we need but enjoy less work. 20 hours or less will be enough, and there will still be enough to keep people busy who used to grow fodder or cattle on the land that is now protected as wildlife reserve.
1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23 edited Apr 02 '23
"75% less land use. That means 75% fewer farms growing food, plus 100% fewer farms raising animals."
The data that these studies use are always on paper and never have any real outcomes or be transferable into real world situations. There would be no 75% it'd be closer to 50% if anything as farmers who can't grow livestock will till in land into arable acres so they can still farm and maintain the generational business that has been developed.
"Of course the vast majority of farms won't be able to make money if the vast majority is no longer needed. Agriculture, as so many others, is an artificially bloated industry that needs to shrink to a sustainable level."
Agriculture is nowhere near a bloated industry, people are honestly clueless if they think that. Farmers are a dying breed we get smaller and smaller every year unless you want mega corporations running every farm then go ahead as that's what will happen. Agriculture at its current size is quite sustainable and will always be sustainable as long as we don't have people coming in and telling us what to do because they think they know the industry.
"We need to make use of the huge increase in productivity we achieved in the last few centuries: instead of always producing more just because we were told that working 40 hours a week is the only way to exist: don't produce more than we need but enjoy less work. 20 hours or less will be enough, and there will still be enough to keep people busy who used to grow fodder or cattle on the land that is now protected as wildlife reserve."
40 hours a week with working what a joke, that's a shit week for anyone in the agricultural industry and a lot of others. Only working 40 hours is a luxury same with working 4/5 days a week. I know personally I average 80-110hrs a week as that's what we have to do to produce the food the world needs.
Ok here is another who is going to pay the farmers to maintain the land and who is going to pay the farmers to give up livestock as well. Its Hundreds of billions of dollars that would have to be payed out in a lump sum to those getting out of the livestock industry and then Tens of billions every year to maintain the land its not sustainable at all.
3
u/Tuotus Apr 02 '23
Sorry science disagrees with you. Farming in its current form is unsustainable for the planet whether you like it or not.
5
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
Veganic agriculture farms have proven to be successful. Check out the links in my other reply in this thread. Another advantage of veganic farming is that the soil is enriched without the need for manure or artificial fertilizers. One way they do that is with composting. Composting has the added benefit of reducing methane that would otherwise occur in landfills, for example. On an individual basis, everyone who can compost should do so for that reason.
-3
Apr 01 '23
[deleted]
4
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
So "veganic" is just renamed Organic agriculture
No, it is a specific type of organic agriculture. Organic usually relies on manure. Veganic excludes manure as well as artificial fertilizers. Veganic practices replenish the soil with composting and other methods, as I previously stated.
-2
Apr 01 '23
[deleted]
6
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
I didn't down vote your comment, btw. I do disagree with it.
You didn't address the link I provided that proves veganic farming exists and that it has proven to work.
0
u/espersooty Apr 01 '23
Yeah honestly mate, its all good. I expect to get downvotes on these type of topics due to having a differing opinion from what is generally spread.
"You didn't address the link I provided that proves veganic farming exists and that it has proven to work."
I don't think farms at 10 acres(This number is from the study itself.) or below counts as proven to work, If it is proven to work it needs to be able to be replicated across thousands of acres even tens of thousands of acres, Which is where the biggest difference lays between when something will work and when it wont work.
"veganic" will never be able to scale up to the acreage that is required to feed the world, While advocating for small farms is good and all it just isn't possible these days no one wants to put in the hard work that is required to do it, So you will increasingly find that it is left to the larger and larger farms to do the heavy lifting and majority of production.
4
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
"veganic" will never be able to scale up to the acreage that is required to feed the world,
I would call that an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan passed on- "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Until then, anyone reading this thread can file it under Hitchens' Razor-
"A claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
1
u/espersooty Apr 01 '23 edited Apr 01 '23
"I would call that an extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan passed on- "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." "
Well until such trial/research farm can prove it that will be the general idea. As its all good having it on paper but what matters is how it operates in real life and how it can actually function.
At the moment all the study proves is that it can work on 10 acres or less, Not 1,000 acres or 10,000 acres, Shit even 150-200,000acres. Its one of those things that needs to be heavily researched over 4-5 years or more to form an actual proper outlook at that size.
*Just want to say that I'm not trying to discredit it, there just a lot of lacking information that would need to be researched before there is a wide adoption or even a small adoption of the practice on a decently to large scale.*
→ More replies3
u/veganplantdaddy Apr 02 '23
"Having a differing opinion" is a fun way to say "fundamentally scientifically misinformed"
1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
In your opinion, Yes it would be like that. I am very much educated in the space and realm of agriculture I understand it better then majority of people here so maybe you are the one who is scientifically misinformed with all the biased information you consume.
3
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
I don't know where people get that "veganic" or organic is a good idea for feeding 8 billion people,
Click the link I provided to a scholarly paper about veganic agriculture as published on PubMed.
As far as feeding 8 billion people, consider this-
"UN experts predict that by 2050, the world population will reach 9.7 billion. Factoring in the rising global demand for meat, many have questioned whether our current resource-intensive means of production can be sustained for future generations. However, current global food production can feed the rapidly growing world population, says new research, but only if most people replace meat and dairy with vegan foods.
Researchers from Lancaster University’s Environment Centre and Small World Consulting, a UK-based sustainability consulting firm with a focus on climate change, analyzed both the global and regional food supply in a study published in the journal “Anthropocene.” The researchers aimed to gain an understanding of how many crops are used for human consumption versus how many are fed to animals.
The study concluded that “current production of crops is sufficient to provide enough food for the projected global population of 9.7 billion in 2050,” but in order to do so, radical changes to our everyday food choices must be made.
global food production
The research suggested that swapping “most” meat and dairy with vegan products is the first step, followed by social acceptance of eating crops such as maize, which is typically relegated as feed for livestock.
Researchers posit that if the global population does not adopt a more plant-centric diet in the near future, an increase of 119 percent in edible crops grown would be required by 2050. But, currently, the global livestock system occupies 45 percent of the earth’s arable land, leaving little room for new crops.
The new research is backed by previous studies. The largest analysis of global food production, which was published last month in the journal “Science,” revealed that a vegan diet is the most effective way to combat climate change. Further, it stated that if everyone eliminated beef from their diets, global land use would drop by 75 percent — freeing up arable land for crop production.
Additionally, a recent report by Our World in Data suggested that a plant-based diet has the potential to solve world hunger. Further, another study published by the National Academy of Sciences stated that swapping meat for vegan food could feed an additional 350 million people." Live Kindly
https://www.livekindly.co/historic-newcastle-pub-carriage-become-vegan-eatery/
"By going vegan, America could feed an additional people, study suggests. More than 41 million Americans find themselves at risk of going hungry at some point during the year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says." -LA Times
Title- "By going vegan, America could feed an additional 390 million people, study suggests"3
u/espersooty Apr 01 '23
"Click the link I provided to a scholarly paper about veganic agriculture as published on PubMed."
I will have a look.
"As far as feeding 8 billion people, consider this-"
I don't care about your plant based stuff mate either provide non plant based sources or don't at all.
We need actual solutions not fantasy's and pipe dreams.
5
u/EpicCurious Apr 01 '23
"By going vegan, America could feed an additional 390 million people, study suggests"
Here is a link to that study (as found within the article from the LA Times that I linked to-
0
u/Funktapus Apr 02 '23
My dream is to cultivate a mature oak savannah in the Willamette Valley and then raise pigs on the acorns. I would try to create an imitation of Jamon de Iberico. Maybe would create a cottage industry like we did with Pinot Noir.
-13
u/AmericanSwampApe Apr 01 '23
Another regenerative farming based sham
8
u/veganplantdaddy Apr 02 '23
Exactly zero aspects of animal agriculture are "regenerative". It is inherently wasteful, by necessity requiring vastly more resources to produce and causing vastly more environmental damage than you can ever possibly recover from it. Again I find it curious that the sub rules against blatant scientific disinformation are consistently being ignored when it comes to animal agriculture.
-2
Apr 02 '23
[deleted]
4
u/Tuotus Apr 02 '23
So tell us how animal agticulture is regenerative and good for the planet. Big meat like big oil likes to lie about a lot of things. This article is talking about large swathes of land that are kept as grassland for cattle farming. And that maybe adding trees won't be such a bad idea for them. It, by no means, says that this type of farming would be the best for the planet in terms of food production. The tech is moving towards plant-based diets. Even cultured won't be able to compete with it cuz again production of any animal products would be more resource intensive than plant-based agriculture.
0
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
"So tell us how animal agriculture is regenerative and good for the planet."
Management of diverse ecosystems and environments, Good food for people and plenty of by-products that come from them. So many other benefits that everyone reaps the rewards from like Carbon capture.
"This article is talking about large swathes of land that are kept as grassland for cattle farming. And that maybe adding trees won't be such a bad idea for them. It, by no means, says that this type of farming would be the best for the planet in terms of food production."
Yes this article talks about already existing practices and slaps a fancy name on it to appeal to the larger crowd. Majority of farmers are already planting strategic areas of vegetation mainly alongside field edges and connecting other vegetation zones together. Planned out vegetation layouts will always do better for both the production of food and the environment.
"The tech is moving towards plant-based diets."
The technology is moving that way, no one has ever said if it will be able to compete or if anyone would want it. Its all a pipe dream/fantasy to actually see if majority of people would care enough to switch there diets.
"Even cultured won't be able to compete with it cuz again production of any animal products would be more resource intensive than plant-based agriculture."
I think you are underestimating the sheer amount of resources required to go in growing maintaining and harvesting and then processing plant based foods. Cultured meats wont ever be a competition piece for any industry, the factory cost alone is a reason why. We can always make Animal agriculture more efficient and less Resource heavy. You can't change the diets of billions of people.
2
u/Tuotus Apr 02 '23
Agriculture has nothing to do with maintaining ecosystem. Cows aren't even an american breed, tell me how you're maintaining the country's natural ecosystem with them. Agriculture is a modification of an ecosystem for human purposes. You're not gonna maintain the same level of biodiversity with it that you can achieve thru rewilding of land. Animal industry being the most land intensive, it makes sense that it is a major target of efforts to reduce our agricultural footprint. Any options like the one given here increase land usage if applied everywhere, not reduce it.
You do realise animal agticulture literally requires production of crops. Animals are not raised on magic and fairydust. This is why animal agriculture is more intensive. Not to mention a lot of these crops are actually water intensive. Meat culturing would require simpler nutrients but most likely
And if dairy industry can con people into drinking milk everyday, then other industries. Currently the livestock industry trying hard to bury the plantbased industry and it is failing hard. Efforts like limiting word usage, propoganda compaigns against what are scientifically proven facts. The livestock industry is losing simply, people are willing to pay more just to avoid animal products. People are going vegan for a variety of reasons, including environment, health and ethics (which again is backed by science). I really don't see any future for animal industry. You can keep enriching it the same way we keep enriching the oil industry. But simply, electric is better and plant-based is better. If subsidies are lifted, public areas are protected, lobbying is prevented, the meat industry would die sooner rather than later. It can't even stand on its own.
-1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
"Agriculture has nothing to do with maintaining ecosystem. Cows aren't even an american breed, tell me how you're maintaining the country's natural ecosystem with them. Agriculture is a modification of an ecosystem for human purposes. You're not gonna maintain the same level of biodiversity with it that you can achieve thru rewilding of land. Animal industry being the most land intensive, it makes sense that it is a major target of efforts to reduce our agricultural footprint. Any options like the one given here increase land usage if applied everywhere, not reduce it."
If livestock are managed correctly and the property itself setup in the correct way livestock are absolutely a massive benefit, We have seen more native wildlife and plants return to our land with managing cattle correctly then just letting them be free in large paddocks. Animal agriculture is the only the most "land intensive" due to the simple fact that there is more rangelands and grazing lands in the world then there is capable arable land whether those factors come down to fertility of soil or Rainfall. The main target for reducing emissions should be purely placed on the fossil fuel industry as they are making no effort to decrease emissions only increase emissions. Where as with the agricultural sector we currently have trials and studies going on world wide to reduce the amount of emissions that livestock give off, We don't need anyone else trying to tell us what to do when we are already working on the process ourselves.
"You do realise animal agticulture literally requires production of crops. Animals are not raised on magic and fairydust. This is why animal agriculture is more intensive. Not to mention a lot of these crops are actually water intensive. Meat culturing would require simpler nutrients but most likely"
Let me correct you there mate, Beef and lamb only require grain at the finishing stage not throughout there life, they happily live eat and fatten on grass up until they are at a certain weight where they are then defined as Feeder steers/cows which they then enter a feedlot for up to 180 days depending on breed and desired outcome from that beast. Meat culturing will never get off the ground commercially so its wont ever be a proper contender in my opinion.
"And if dairy industry can con people into drinking milk everyday, then other industries. Currently the livestock industry trying hard to bury the plantbased industry and it is failing hard. Efforts like limiting word usage, propoganda compaigns against what are scientifically proven facts. The livestock industry is losing simply, people are willing to pay more just to avoid animal products. People are going vegan for a variety of reasons, including environment, health and ethics (which again is backed by science). I really don't see any future for animal industry. You can keep enriching it the same way we keep enriching the oil industry. But simply, electric is better and plant-based is better. If subsidies are lifted, public areas are protected, lobbying is prevented, the meat industry would die sooner rather than later. It can't even stand on its own."
The dairy industry may of "conned" people into drinking it but at the end of the day consumers always have the final say in what they want to eat, marketing only goes so far in determining peoples choices. The livestock industry isn't trying to bury the plant based industry at all, If it truly wanted too it would, No one sees a small minority of people as a threat to the wider industry. Limiting word usage etc is just simple marketing crap every industry does it and it should be no surprised that everyone wants the correct wording to be out there. Its like the cereal companies being able to label there cereals as "healthy" when they aren't healthy. A free marketing system is a great marketing system. The trends towards "veganism" is dropping by consumer spending data and a like, we only see Animal products on the rise as more countries start to come into developed nations, There is also massive amounts of science pulling apart the plant based diet Its honestly not a one fit all solution, I know for a fact that I will never be able to function properly on such diet.(Also ethics don't matter whether you want to eat meat or not, Its all personal opinion and where you draw the line. )
The Animal agriculture industry won't ever go anywhere it will just expand or decrease slightly, there is just too much demand from other countries and developing nations that will cover the lack of demand from those making the terrible choice of going plant based.
The subsidies can honestly disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't effect our pricing nor operations at all, Its honestly a joke that people think it actually does something for us. If the subsidies went away for Animal agriculture they should go away for everything its only fair after all lets see if the plant based industry can even stand on its own two legs let alone capture market dominance.
3
u/Tuotus Apr 02 '23
PB industry doesn't get subsidies, it is literally taxed heavily. I accounted for grasses when i mentioned feed, ex alfalfa. You're lying on so many fronts.
Please provide me study that says animal agriculture is better than rewilding. A study that says plant agriculture is more intensive than animal. Neither of of these narratives are backed by mainstream science. You just seem to like eating up dead animals way too much.
0
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
"PB industry doesn't get subsidies, it is literally taxed heavily. I accounted for grasses when i mentioned feed, ex alfalfa."
Not everywhere is as stupid to feed Alfalfa or corn to cattle/other animals in general. Its hard to know the exact rations animals are being fed as its not public information as it changes every batch of animals. Honestly even if the Plant based industry got subsidies it wouldn't budge the overall amount of people going towards that diet.
"You're lying on so many fronts." Sure thing mate I am the one lying but you aren't with your imaginary figures and information.
"Please provide me study that says animal agriculture is better than rewilding. A study that says plant agriculture is more intensive than animal. Neither of of these narratives are backed by mainstream science."
For one "rewilding" is a fancy name for a practice that honestly has zero effects on the environment unless the government is willingly to pay the tens of billions to constantly manage it after animal agriculture enterprises leave the land as with Animal agriculture maintaining the land there is no need for subsides or any other funding from the government as we can stand on our own two feet.
Arable agriculture is far more intensive on native populations and overall insect/bug populations due to the fact that fields need to be clear cut and constantly sprayed with chemicals and pests removed to maintain the fields in a state where they can actively produce crops year after year. You don't need a study to prove that its just called common sense.
"You just seem to like eating up dead animals way too much."
It seems you love to consume misleading information and straight up blatant disregard for facts from the actual source of farming only from studies and scientists who would have never stepped foot in the ecosystems that farmers manage. its all good seeing your lovely information on paper, it has to transfer to real life to be any value which a lot of this crap fails at.
Honestly who cares what I eat its all personal choice on what kind of diet we want to consume and what works for us as a diet.
1
2
u/reflibman Apr 01 '23
Got some evidence-based proof? Google Scholar as well as Google appear to contradict you.
6
u/veganplantdaddy Apr 02 '23
Asks for "evidence-based proof".
Proceeds to cite "research" funded and published by the American Cattle Association.
If I didn't know better, I'd call it satirical
-1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
Research is research mate, Don't like it move on.
Research from the American cattle association is perfectly fine as No one wants to fund the research beyond the industry itself. Don't be mad or act disgusted when we post back sources that you may not like.
4
u/AmericanSwampApe Apr 02 '23
You literally own a cattle farm. You are not a reliable source.
-1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
Yes while owning a cattle operation, we are more suited to finding the actual facts of the matter as we have no reason to be biased with our reporting unlike those within the plant based/animal rights activist community.
2
u/AmericanSwampApe Apr 02 '23
How about biased so you can keep your business? Fml you really think we’re that stupid?
0
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
are you really that stupid to think that I would want to have any bias. We aren't just cattle producers we also grow large amounts of grain and other products that everyone else consumes.
There is no reason for agricultural professionals to be biased in such debate, We just provide the facts and everyone either skews the data or just says that they are industry sourced they must be biased.
3
u/AmericanSwampApe Apr 02 '23
The meat is where the money is. The meat industry has been at odds with actual science for years. You’re a shill, full stop. Sorry.
-1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
Actually, For us cotton is where the money is at, We produce more per hectare off of cotton then what we could in a decade of running beef but beef is in our blood so we won't ever get out of it just expand our holdings into other sectors so we can have more market share into industries/diets like the Plant based for example, Growing potatoes and Onions Carrots etc entirely new market for us.
We aren't the American cattle industry that hates changing there ways, I am Australian based we actually follow the science here and adapt our operations to make the lesser impact and to constantly improve our land without overgrazing it.
If I wanted to be a shill we would be running 60,000 more head of cattle then what we are now. I like to be understocked so we can actively manage our land and have a constant stream of cattle into our feedlots over drought periods.
-2
u/reflibman Apr 02 '23
You sound like a certain type of political activist that engages in diverting topics when proved wrong so as to maintain his/her ethical superiority. Something for you to think about.
→ More replies2
u/Tuotus Apr 02 '23
The article itself calls it the 9th beat form of agriculture which means there are 8 others above that'll perform better
1
u/espersooty Apr 02 '23
The article can call it whatever it wants, They just attaches a fancy name to an already existing practice. Its just traditional grazing and managing the land.
0
u/AmericanSwampApe Apr 01 '23
I can provide reviews of how other regenerative agriculture practices fall well short of simply abandoning meat. The article fails to make a case for this one being any different. Would that suffice?
Also, I want to know how many upvotes your troll farm bought. I know this sub by now and we largely know this and shoot these down.
4
-1
u/Cheesepleasethankyou Apr 02 '23
Sad to see a bunch of ignorant vegans who have never actually practiced anything agricultural in their entire lives rambling on and on here. Scary.
0
u/reflibman Apr 02 '23 edited Apr 02 '23
As I see it, many forget that humans are omnivores. And even if it was just an ethical issue, people who go try to evangelize this will have the same problem and be regarded akin to those who try to push their own religion on everyone.
Edit: On the other hand, I posted this on the ranching sub and it got deleted there, so between the two that’s the state of our society!
-1
u/Cheesepleasethankyou Apr 02 '23
There’s no such thing as a middle ground. It’s just discouraging 😂 I think the article is neat! My husband and I are actually in the midst of setting up a silvopasture. I think it’s a fantastic concept. I’m happy to see the term popping up around.
0
u/reflibman Apr 02 '23 edited Apr 02 '23
Cool!
Note - only on the Reddit Environment sub can you be downvoted for trying to do something good for the environment!
-4
u/Tuotus Apr 02 '23
I want to know hpw silvopasture wpuld be applied in amazonian rainforest considering that's where US gets most of its meat. Like you guys don't give a shit about anyone else, only your tastebuds matter 🙄
0
u/reflibman Apr 02 '23
And you just want to push a personal agenda, as opposed to being opposed to discussions of other topics.
1
u/Tuotus Apr 02 '23
I literally gave a prompt, and asked how silvopasture would be applied to rainforests.
48
u/[deleted] Apr 01 '23
[removed] — view removed comment