Two cows with tags on their ears outside on a farm Farmers are pushing for people to ditch Veganuary in favor of Regenuary. - Media Credit: Adobe Stock

‘Regenuary’: Animal Farmers Take Aim At Growingly Popular Veganuary Campaign

Veganuary is climbing in popularity, but advocates of regenerative agriculture insist that grazing animals are key in cutting emissions

By

8 Minutes Read

As another record-breaking Veganuary ends, the backlash continues. This time, in the form of “Regenuary,” a campaign that promotes regenerative agriculture, especially animal grazing, as a solution to the climate crisis.

Advocates of the initiative encourage the public to align with it in place of Veganuary. Why anyone would want to dismantle a movement that seeks to prevent suffering, avoid another global pandemic, and keep our planet habitable is anyone’s guess. Perhaps the trillion-dollar meat industry could enlighten us.

Unperturbed by the spectacular “marketing misfire” that was “Februdairy,” animal agriculture enthusiasts are having another go with their latest campaign. And while there are some environmental benefits to regenerative agriculture, scientific researchers question just how significant these are. And, whether we need domesticated animals to achieve them.

What is regenerative grazing?

Supporters of Regenuary say that by mimicking the grazing patterns of wild animals, “livestock” can feed off the land while fertilizing it.

Their nibbling encourages plants to put down deeper roots, and their movement tramples plants, mixing their manure with the soil, which does the same. Deeper roots are beneficial because they can sequester more carbon in the soil. It all sounds good, doesn’t it?

Almost too good to be true…

Farm land with the text Veganuary or Regenuary across it
Regenuary Regenuary hails regenerative agriculture as a solution to climate breakdown.

Do we need manure for fertilizer?

Currently, the world’s farmed animals produce so much waste that it cannot be absorbed by the land. It gets stored in delightful-sounding lagoons from which it leaches out.

Or, it is deliberately discharged, polluting the air, earth, and waterways. It is responsible for algal blooms that kill aquatic life in rivers, lakes, and oceans. It also exacerbates respiratory illness in people who live near farms.1

Animal waste is a health and environmental catastrophe, and it’s not as if we need the manure as fertilizer. An increasing number of farms are growing produce without any animal input at all.

These “stock-free” farms use cover crops, crop rotation, and green manures to fertilize and protect soils. And, to avoid emissions and sequester carbon. They work with nature to enrich the soil, not against it by pushing it to its absolute limits.

Do we need grazing animals?

It’s interesting that Regenuary proponents insist we need grazing farmed animals to stimulate plant roots. Because we already have wild grazers, including deer, beavers, rabbits, and boar – millions of whom are shot by farmers for being pests.

However, should domesticated grazing animals such as horses, sheep, or cows still be required in some areas, it’s entirely possible to accommodate them without killing and eating them.

They could help us, and we could look after them. Living in harmony can never involve slaughterhouses.

cows grazing
Adobe Stock Some meat companies insist that regenerative farming and grazing animals are key in reducing emissions.

Do grazing animals help sequester carbon?

Yes. But do they sequester enough to offset the emissions from rearing the animals themselves? Well, that’s a question animal farmers and Regenuary advocates would prefer you didn’t ask.

In a report called Grazed and Confused, Oxford University’s Food Climate Research Network revealed: “Only under very specific conditions can [grazing] help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the GHG emissions these grazing animals generate.”2

They found that, at best, grazing animals could offset between just 20 and 60 percent of the emissions. In other words, a net rise. This figure will also reduce over time. After a few decades, the soil will have sequestered all it was able to. At that point, carbon storage drops to zero.

Regenerative agriculture’s big “success” story

In 2019, the results from a study3 at White Oaks Pastures, a beef farm in Georgia, USA, was released. This farm is hailed as a regenerative farming success story, and it has claimed for years that its beef is carbon negative.

As we might expect, the farm is responsible for reduced carbon emissions compared to conventional cow meat production. However, it is not carbon negative.

As environmental researcher Nicholas Carter and Dr Tushar Mehta observed: “The study has significant lapses that grossly exaggerate or misrepresent the true soil organic carbon sequestration capacity of their farming techniques. [And] there are serious potential problems with studies funded by large industries, and this study by General Mills shows typical patterns.

All studies require critical review, but industry studies even more so.”4

One of the key issues with White Oaks Pastures’ claims is that it uses a 100-year timeframe for accounting for methane. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and all other credible bodies examine methane over 20 years because that is when most of the damage is caused.

Does methane matter?

Methane really matters. Over a 20-year timeframe, it has a warming effect 80 times that of carbon dioxide. It is for this reason that climate scientists say cutting global methane emissions is the quickest way to slow down global heating.

According to the Executive Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme, Inger Andersen: “Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years.”

Sixty percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from human activity.5 And cows and other grazing ruminants are the main source of it.6

Land use

Currently, animal agriculture uses 77 percent of global farming land7. But even more land would be needed for regenerative farming than for conventional farming.

That is not in dispute. Even the White Oaks Pastures study admits that its grazing methods require two and a half times more land than standard meat production. Two and a half times more!

Already the vast amount of land used for meat production has driven a devastating decline in wildlife as land is taken from nature to be used for farmed animals. Just since 1970, 60 per cent of wild animal populations have been wiped out.

Moreover, scientists declaring the sixth mass extinction is underway. Meat is cited as a leading cause.8 Regeneratively farming would only drive further deforestation and even greater wildlife losses.

Despite what Regenuary supporters might say, regenerative grazing is part of the problem; it isn’t the solution. We should be careful about being drawn into futile discussions on how much carbon might be offset by stimulating plant roots when we know for certain that removing farmed animals from the land is the fastest way to reduce agriculture’s overall GHG emissions.9

Regenerative grazing is a con, a classic case of conjurors’ misdirection. Because while we waste time debating this point, methane levels are rising fast,10 the atmosphere is warming, and our planet is dying.

regenerative grazing
Adobe Stock Glover stresses that regenerative grazing is part of the problem.

We already know the answer

We know from Poore and Nemecek’s 2018 meta-analysis of our global food systems, that almost all animal-based foods have a higher climate impact than almost all plant-based foods.11

We know that, if the world were to adopt a plant-based diet, our total agricultural land use would shrink from 4.1 billion hectares to one billion hectares. This marks a reduction of 75 percent.12

Further, this would free up vast amounts of land that could return to natural habitats and ecosystem. It would also prevent further deforestation – the biggest wins for biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

We know from 2019 IPCC research that a fully vegan diet is significantly better for the climate than eating meat, including fish, even just once a month.13 And we know that beef and lamb are so damaging that cutting them out of our diets would save seven gigatons C02e every year.

Meanwhile, a fully plant-based diet would save double that.14

Putting it into practice – without Regenuary

We have the data, and we know the fastest way to bring down emissions and to mitigate the worst effects of climate breakdown.

Now, we need an urgent and concerted effort from governments, businesses, and investors to help farmers transition away from animal agriculture. They need incentives and support for growing veganically and for protecting both the climate and the environment through land restoration.

In the meantime, Veganuary will continue to inspire, help, and guide hundreds of thousands of people who wish to reduce their own impact.

I am confident that Veganuary will continue to grow and to succeed. And that’s partly because people know greenwashing when they see it. And the stench of industry bullsh*t around regenerative grazing is overpowering.

Matthew is the founder of Vegan Fried Chicken (VFC) and the director and founder of VegCaptial – an investment fund that provides early-stage capital to companies striving to replace the use of animals in the food system.

References

1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-farms-neighbors-idUSKBN18X2E4
2. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
3. https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf
4. https://plantbaseddata.medium.com/the-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef-7dfca9d74333
5. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/methane
6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11066-3
7. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
8. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds
9. Sun, Z. et al. (2022) Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend, Nature Food, doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5
10. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/
11. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
12. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
13. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/5-5-mitigation-options-challenges-and-opportunities/5-5-2-demand-side-mitigation-options/5-5-2-1-mitigation-potential-of-different-diets/figure-5-12/
14. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food

Millions around the world trust Plant Based News for content about navigating our changing planet & our role in it.

Our independent team of journalists and experts are committed to making an impact through a wide range of content—and you can help by supporting our work today.

heading/author

The Author

Matthew Glover

Matthew Glover is the co-founder of Veganuary, alongside his wife Jane Land. In 2019, Glover founded Million Dollar Vegan, a global education charity focused on veganism. He is also the founder of Veg Capital, a non-profit that helps funnel funding into companies working to end animal exploitation. In December 2020, Glover and Adam Lyons joined forces to launch vegan food brand VFC.

More by Matthew Glover iconography/arrow-right

heading/comments

Leave a Comment

Plant Based News Comment Policy

In short:- If you act with maturity and consideration for other users, you should have no problems. Please read our Comment policy before commenting.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

64 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt
Matt
8 months ago

Brilliant article! Lays out the facts very well. I have had this debate many times with animal agriculture enthusiasts. While “regenerative agriculture” does sequester carbon, the system is still a major net emitter of CO2e. A point which they seem unable, or unwilling to grasp. But this lays it out beautifully. Well done!

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Doesn’t have any facts that are relative to regenerative agriculture, since he doesn’t even know what it is. The same seems to apply to you. Start thinking outside the “vegan box”.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Surprising that you would be taken in by the regenerative agriculture con Rowland. I thought you were smarter than that. If a system isn’t a net sequester it’s an emitter. All food production systems are emitters, apart from nut production. But grazing livestock is the worst due to the CO2e emissions, including methane and nitrous oxide. Also don’t forget land usage, land that should have old growth forests. Did you read the article, or go strait to the comments?

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Please describe what you think regenerative Ag is?

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

It’s a system of farming that seeks to improve the quality of the soil and sequester carbon in that soil. Also to reduce erosion and increase biodiversity. It’s also a greenwashing term used by animal agriculture where they seek to obfuscate the damage done by grazing livestock. Speaking to an audience that likes to eat meat, and doesn’t understand the concept of net emissions.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

So you still don’t know. The first bit of your answer is getting closer, the second part plus your graph is b******t. Nothing whatsoever to do with reg Ag, in fact it’s in direct opposition.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

The chart shows the carbon footprint of different foods. Do you understand the terms green washing, and net emissions Rowland?

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

What’s that got to do with regen Ag? Like the author of the article you haven’t got a clue what it is.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

What are the net emissions of a kilo of beef raised with regenerative agriculture techniques? Green washing has everything to do with regenerative agriculture that uses livestock.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

What were the net emissions of 60 million Bison before they were almost exterminated by enlightened modern man.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

I’m concerned with human activity not a natural baseline. By all means rewild the plains reintroduce bison and wolves. What about the 1.5 billion cows alive at any given time created artificially by humanity? We can’t eradicate the human population. But we can stop breeding cows.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Nothing to do with regen Ag.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Regenuairy promotes beef production. It’s part of this problem.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

I don’t promote beef ( don’t even eat the stuff ) but I recognise it’s value as a part of integrated no import Ag.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

People could eat potatoes. Beef is a luxury not a necessity. But people have grown soft.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Potatoes are one of the most heavily polluting crops. You don’t need that rubbish, eat fruit and veg.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Nonsense. Potatoes are vegetables. And they are nutritionally complete. Eat them with a little soil and you get everything you need. Humans are specifically adapted to eat cooked corms due to our high number of amylase gene copies.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Thats not what I said Matt, I said it is one of the most heavily polluting crops, You can get far more nutrition from other veg without the “filler paste”

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Not sure what filter paste is. But I guess the Inca were wrong. And that potatoes didn’t save the Russian population from starvation or allow the Irish population to boom.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Filler paste not filter past =Starch ( high calories low nutrient density ) or sugar.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Starch is the cornerstone of the human diet.

Independent amylase gene copy number bursts correlate with dietary preferences in mammals

Amylase copy number:
comment image

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

You’re right Matt it is the cornerstone of human diet. The question is should it be? Haven’t eaten it for 30 yrs. Only comprises a small proportion of the diet of free living humans.
Unless you can give me an accurate description of regen Ag, this discussion is futile.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

We evolved to eat it. Free living humans eat cooked corms. You a low carber?

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

I feel like you didn’t read the article Rowland. It isn’t against regenerative agriculture. It’s against using it as greenwashing to promote beef production. Vegans being natural environmentalists would support regenerative agriculture, so long as it doesn’t involve the commodification of animals. I suppose you don’t know what veganic permaculture is? Maybe you understand what gulid planting is. Perhaps you understand that a system which grows plants for food can employ wild animals without exploiting them in a system that mimics a natural ecosystem. Put simply: I think you are barking up the wrong tree here Rowland.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

The Bison were replaced by millions of hectares of arable Ag, which is now on it’s last legs.

If you want to reduce the 1.5 billion cattle plus sheep, pigs, and chickens etc. Support regen Ag and regenerate the land by putting some of the animals back on to it. No animals, no soil, no soil, no plants, no plants no animals (including us).

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

No animals? I’m vegan I love animals, wild animals, in their natural environment. I don’t view animals as resources. I’m all for rewilding land we now use to graze and feed livestock. You should love vegans, as we reduce the burden on the system. For some reason you are always in here trolling. If you want to rewild lands we are your best asset.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

I’ve been re-wilding lands for 30yrs, not vegan in sight.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Your welcome for the reduced land usage.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Are you a big fan of Allan Savory? Yeah I watched that TED talk some years ago too. With it’s bogus claims.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Can’t stand Savory, he’s a blight on the movement.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

I’ve been interested in permaculture for years. So yeah I understand what regenerative agriculture is. People like Savory, those same people that run Regenuary (which this article is about) hijack the concept to sell meat. Let’s call it what it is: green washing. Because pasture raised beef has a higher carbon footprint than CAFO beef and it requires more land. So let’s not be conned so easily or be fooled that eating meat can benefit the environment.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

If you want an accurate reply to that: the answer is less peole eating less of everything.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Especially meat.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

I’m beginning to think you’ve got a thing about meat. Since I don’t eat much it has no effect on me.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Of course I have a problem with meat. I refer you to the above chart.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

If regen Ag were fully implemented you wouldn’t need a chart. You still don’t understand!

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Regen Ag has an unacceptably high CO2e cost to produce beef. And there is not enough land. The average person would have to eat way less meat. Do you think they are prepared to do that Rowland? The only way out of this is to make the eating of meat morally unacceptable.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

humans can only eat what the land can produce (without damage to the Biosphere) so if that means less meat, grains, pulses and oilseeds, with more vegetables and fruit, then so be it, (thats more or less what I eat anyway). You think it’s morally wrong to eat meat, I don’t, so who’s right? It’s up to the individual. You break the laws of nature, you pay the penalty. As we’re beginning to find out.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Ultimately the ledger will be balanced.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

**

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

GHG emission per kilogram of food product

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

comment image

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago

There’s an easy answer to this one “ if you don’t understand a subject, yet alone know what it is” don’t publish articles! And if you want to promote your own climate damaging products, try doing it without denigrating sincere people.

sagitarijus21
sagitarijus21
8 months ago

I would like to know what planet hi is talking about??? 4.1 billion hectares of agricultural land ? At school I knew 1 hectare = 1 square kilometre and planet earth total are is just about 510 000000 square kilometres. It is just little bit more than half of billion and 71% is water. Sounds like hi is just marketing for his production.

Loz M
Loz M
8 months ago

Not everyone can be vegan. So regardless of the intentions of meat and dairy industries who we all know are just interested in making money; this is still a good idea. It’s something that encourages people to think about their impact on the ecosystem as a whole, it’s gotta be better than keeping people’s heads buried in the sand. Rather than arguing the toss, is it not better to guide people in a better direction rather than give them black and white choices? After all, we already know that the world won’t go vegan over night. Animal agriculture alone has been going on for thousands of years. It’s the last 100 or so years that have done the worst damage. Let’s start by undoing that.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Loz M

Do you mean not everyone can be vegan for psychological or physiological reasons?

The real damage is done by beef production, that is what has really ramped up over the last 100 years. We could start with that. If reducitarians just stopped eating beef that would go a long way to repairing our global food system.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Why single out beef? IPCC figures show approx 16% animal Ag 12% arable Ag, as being the major pollutants. What about poultry, pigs, grains , pulses, sugar, oilseeds, forced vegetables and fruit to name but a tip of the iceberg. ALL INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE NEEDS TO GO! Anything less is pissing in the ocean.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Beef is the low hanging fruit in this situation.

comment image

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

As it’s produced today! Not as it could be used in the future.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Did you read the article Rowland? “They found that, at best, grazing animals could offset between just 20 and 60 percent of the emissions. In other words, a net rise.”

The emissions would still be way too high. That’s the point.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

But the numbers would decrease dramatically! Remember 60 million Bison. Read the answer from The Sustainable Food Trust.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

We have 1.5 billion head of cattle. And the demand for beef is rising. The math doesn’t work out Rowland. And what about land usage? “Even the White Oaks Pastures study admits that its grazing methods require two and a half times more land than standard meat production.” It just cannot work with a human population of 8 billion +. I know you understand the population problem. But there is a second population problem: Our livestock.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

As I said Matt “ all industrial agriculture has to go”. That means virtually all of the 1.5 billion cattle, as well as all the animals that are CAFO produced, pigs, chickens etc. If the land can’t produce it without damage to the Biosphere then humans can’t eat it, that goes for the way we produce most plant foods as well. We don’t need the food industry and all the crap it produces, smaller farm units can do the job. But unless you can take immediate steps to reduce the population we haven’t got a hope in hell which ever way we go.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Yeah. I agree, but how do we transition? Universal veganism is our best hope. The 1.5 billion cows go away, the CAFOs go away. We switch to growing crops using regenerative agriculture techniques. So we need veganism, or reducitarianism to become moral imperatives.

Loz M
Loz M
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

I can’t be vegan. And before you jump on my case, I was for more than five years. Mid way through, I discovered that I’m unable to absorb iron properly. Everything else was fine so it wasn’t a poor diet. I also wasn’t starving myself. It was actually the opposite. I was eating substantially more food to try and keep up my energy, I put on weight and am still dealing with the health issues associated with the excess weight. I also spent years on strong iron tablets which have messed with my digestion. Having said that, I don’t regret being vegan for all those years and I think people should definitely cut down on meat and dairy permanently if they can, or substantially if they can’t. It’s also worth taking into consideration that some people live on the poverty line. They may not have access to a healthy vegan diet. There are such things as food deserts. A vegan diet is not sustainable if you can’t access fruit and veg. That needs to be addressed. I have to disagree with you on beef. It’s iron rich and as a larger animal, goes much further than a pig or a chicken. We could try and choose options that avoid factory farming entirely? There are pest animals. Depending on which country you live in, they could be anything from a bird or a rabbit, to a camel. It’s possible to make major changes that can benefit everyone, including animals and the environment as a whole. But not if people are excluded from the discussion. By telling people that a potentially useful method of improving our relationship with food and the environment should be ignored in favour of a single dietary choice, this article does exactly that.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Loz M

I’m not sure how inaccessible beans and rice is. Even in food desserts. It’s cheap and healthy too. I practically live on that myself.

Iron from red meat is a well worn out concept. Anyway it’s heme iron, a substance know to cause genetic mutations in the colon which leads to cancer. Eating beef to get iron is like drinking Coke to get water.

Loz M
Loz M
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

There are richer sources of plant based iron. But they aren’t as easily absorbed. I’ve tried every possible combination to absorb them from plant sources. It’s interesting that you mention coke. That is a vegan product but not an environmental one. I don’t actually drink the stuff. I do on occasion eat beans and rice but found that even after eating them for years as a vegan, I was never able to eat them all that much without having a dodgy tummy. I went from having a good digestion system pre vegan to having one that worked fine and regular every now and then, to one that just became worse and worse as time went on. And yet, for years I persisted, I did my best to improve my diet, to get healthier. I kept telling people the only difficulty that I had with my vegan diet, was my gluten allergy. It’s easy to convince yourself that because you can do it, everyone else can too. I fell into that trap as a vegan. But that just wasn’t the case for me. After my last blood test last year, I found out my iron was low yet again. I had to make a decision. You need to take a step back and think about the way your approaching this discussion. I’ve used these arguments myself. There are more ways to encourage people to eat in a way that serves animal interests than simply removing them from the menu.

Rowland Ross
Rowland Ross
8 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Rice? I thought you were opposed to anthropogenic methane.

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  Rowland Ross

Of couse. There are methods to grow rice that emit much less methane. And compared to beef production rice currently emits significantly less methane per weight/calories produced. Rice produces 13% of human methane emissions while producing a total of 37% of the world’s calories. This can be improved vastly by growing rice in shallower ponds, or not using ponds at all.

sagitarijus21
sagitarijus21
8 months ago
Reply to  Loz M

Yes. You are absolutely right. People should stop keeping the heads buried in the sand. People should stand up and stop that veganuary nonsense at once. Don’t have anything against vegans but do that in January what is possible be worse? Only ex butchers when could not stand up for the business could create something like that. Six hundred thousand people join every year . Every one spent at least £10 a day that makes £186 million in one month. It looks like wolf in the sheepskin if we talking about motivated greedy food industry isn’t?

Matt
Matt
8 months ago
Reply to  sagitarijus21

What are you banging on about?

sagitarijus21
sagitarijus21
8 months ago

Yes. You are absolutely right. People should stop keeping the heads buried in the sand. People should stand up and stop that veganuary nonsense at once. Don’t have anything against vegans but do that in January what is possible be worse? Only ex butchers when could not stand up for the business could create something like that. Six hundred thousand people join every year . Every one spent at least £10 a day that makes £186 million in one month. It looks like wolf in the sheepskin if we talking about motivated greedy food industry isn’t?

sagitarijus21
sagitarijus21
8 months ago

Not seasonal vegetables in heated green houses creating most emissions of all food industry. But when we are five times over populated planet is very hard to find right solution

rodentx2
rodentx2
8 months ago