Here is what I requested, which you even quoted:And you have not cited a speck of evidence that raising grass-fed cows is better for the environment, better for the cows or better for the climate than raising plants for human consumption. Correct?
It doesn't seem like you're reading my posts in detail. I'd recommend going back to look at how many separate points I made, with almost none of them being contested.
I respect your intentions here, but your pattern so far has been to link to something that counters just one out of the several points I make in a given post, leaving all the other points totally unaddressed, and then I counter the thing you posted. Then you keep asking me to provide more evidence even though most of what I've already presented is still hanging out in this thread, unanswered and uncontested.
For a few quick examples as a reminder:
-Natural grasslands are typically in drier areas, places that are less ideal for growing many types of crops, and that don't support large numbers of trees as a forest does. Savory in particular focuses on the drier places of the world, even drier than common grasslands. Grasslands are tuned to the amount of rainfall in the area that they're in, unlike most types of crops that would be brought into those areas. And grass can be stored as hay for feeding cows in areas with colder winters. So it's not a better/worse comparison between plants and grass-fed cows; it's about different methods of food production for different areas. But you've ignored that point.
-Holistically managed grasslands don't require herbicides, pesticides, much or any fertilizer, tillage, and relatively little water, especially if they collect rainwater. The reason for this is that the grasslands are tuned to their environment and they're inherently diverse with numerous plants species. Nature fundamentally tries to destroy artificial rows of crops, and farmers need to use organic or synthetic pesticides and herbicides to keep bugs and weeds away from them. Grasslands welcome weeds and bugs, with usually no problem, because it's all a big balanced mix anyway. Turning natural grasslands into places for growing crops would be to take away what nature already has there and put something else there, supported by pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and irrigation. Grassland cattle ranching, in contrast, just makes use of what's there in a state somewhat close to how it would otherwise be.
-Animals can be used for the raising of food plants in addition to providing meat/eggs/milk, reducing the need for fertilizer and fuel for the growing of those plants. I presented the example (still unaddressed by anyone) of a permaculture orchard that raises free range cow, sheep, goats, and chickens, and routinely brings them through their orchard to mow the grass, clear the weeds and vines, fertilize the soil, and eat the bug larva that would otherwise become pests. This would have otherwise required machines, external fertilizers, pesticides, etc. The orchard reduced fuel consumption by 85% compared to before they started bringing their animals in, reduced their fertilizer needs, and has excellent natural pest control. They produce more calories of food than they would if they operated as a no-animal orchard. Nature operates as a system of plants and animals, not just plants, and permacultures often make use of that fact.
In Savory's TED talk that you linked to, he makes the claim that his special method of cattle farming cures the problem of desertification, the evidence from the peer-reviewed literature contradicts him. Right?
The study from the article linked to showed that Savory's method completely avoided having to burn vegetation to clear for the next growing season. In contrast, the control lands with fewer grazers had to have portions of them routinely burned.
This was the core of what Savory has argued and the study linked to from the article that you linked to
supported his claim. He has said that grasslands are a relationship of plants and animals, that animals play the role of clearing the adult vegetation, fertilizing it, and stomping vegetation into the soil. Without those animals, he argues that the vegetation doesn't biologically decompose, and instead just stays there and oxidizes, leading to prolonged reduced future growth from that area. Thus, people often resort to burning it, which is not ideal for several reasons. And the study showed that the control lands- the ones Savory was not managing and that had fewer cows- did indeed have to resort to burning vegetation. Savory's lands required no burning, because he properly managed his livestock to eat all the mature grass. Burning vegetation still releases methane, risks promoting desertification, and provides no food. His solution avoided that problem, because he recreated a combined animal/plant relationship that mimicked nature well, and provided plenty of food.
Savory's method did noticeably better at what? The whole purpose of his cattle farming scheme was to cure the problem of desertification. No study found any evidence of increased vegetation. And certainly no study has shown that his scheme of raising cattle if better for the environment, for the animals or for the climate than raising plants for human consumption. Right?
Savory's method did better at providing food from the dry land compared to the controls. It also eliminated the need for vegetation burning, which releases methane while providing no nutrients to humans.
And you're the one that linked to that article with that study; not me. It just didn't show what you were thinking, I guess.
).