[danimal88]

The regenerative ag conversation is really overhyped. Its a way to justified the continuation of an industry plagued by environmental issues and ethical issues. The numbers don't work out in terms of how much land would be needed to effectively use regenerative ag at anything close to current meat consumption and there is still no agreement on whether it actually even works, mostly just meat industry advocates sitting behind flimsy science with a friendly sounding non profit sitting in front of the meat groups.

The idea that we need to slaughter cattle to regenerate land is pretty flawed if nothing more because if this was actually effective, we could simply reintroduce bison and other animals that are natural to a given local and not need to constantly pump meat out of that same land. Meat production will slowly decline as consumers have more ethical, environmentally friendly, cost effective, healthy, and savory enough alternatives. Impossible and Beyond are the mvp and this is only going to accelerate. Especially if we are eventually start to price GHG.

[pkphilip]

We have 100s of farmers that we personally work with - some of them with less than 2 hectares of land, who are using livestock to help in their agriculture. Without livestock they will be paying through their nose for biofertilizer and other inputs.

They sell male calves and older cattle and also eggs, chicken etc. But not much else.

In all likelihood these farmers probably do far less damage to the environment and also "consume" far less plastic packaging and produce far less non-recyclable waste than the average person living in an apartment in a city. Also, the overall pollution per person in the household of a farmer is likely a lot less as well.

[Gabriel_Martin]

If we're really looking to "leave no trace" on the land as much as we can, that could definitely include a roaming head of 100m bison or so IMO. The way they interact with the carbon cycle could be a net positive.