Thanks for bringing this to our attention John. I've read some about these efforts and am familiar with Peter's work, but I learned more from this and did not have the documentary to watch.
I think I'm close to Prof. Wayne on this. Cut way back on beef, but manage what we do raise - as you describe here.
Interesting read. I really struggle with this one, not least since reading George Monbiot's Regenesis, and more specifically his analysis - and seeming dismantling - of any scientific basis for this approach as a scalable solution; also most famously his debate with Alan Savory. What do you make of his counterarguments, I wonder
Perhaps, if it is done for the purpose of rewilding and restoring grasslands - rather than as a strategy for justifying "sustainable" livestock production for meat, or even as a climate solution. The argument - and the science (see e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43452-3) suggests that the methane emissions from ruminants outweigh any soil carbon benefits.
The Wang et al paper in Nature has a limited view on soil carbon accounting. We will be sharing much more detail on this, but just for now, in a nutshell - their paper's resources for soil carbon measurement only measure down 30cm - where we have found significant carbon accrual in healthy pasture lands down to a meter, and our team, and other rigorous science teams, always measure down to a meter. It's much more work, much more expensive in time and labor and lab costs - and it's a much more accurate assessment of soil carbon. There is a lot more soil carbon in our soils, and much, much more soil carbon to be accrued in healthy, well-managed pastures, than this Nature paper suggests. More to come.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention John. I've read some about these efforts and am familiar with Peter's work, but I learned more from this and did not have the documentary to watch.
I think I'm close to Prof. Wayne on this. Cut way back on beef, but manage what we do raise - as you describe here.
Interesting read. I really struggle with this one, not least since reading George Monbiot's Regenesis, and more specifically his analysis - and seeming dismantling - of any scientific basis for this approach as a scalable solution; also most famously his debate with Alan Savory. What do you make of his counterarguments, I wonder
The basic principle - bison mimicry - makes sense to me. And is core to most rewilding efforts. The real test will be in how it's put into effect.
Perhaps, if it is done for the purpose of rewilding and restoring grasslands - rather than as a strategy for justifying "sustainable" livestock production for meat, or even as a climate solution. The argument - and the science (see e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43452-3) suggests that the methane emissions from ruminants outweigh any soil carbon benefits.
The Wang et al paper in Nature has a limited view on soil carbon accounting. We will be sharing much more detail on this, but just for now, in a nutshell - their paper's resources for soil carbon measurement only measure down 30cm - where we have found significant carbon accrual in healthy pasture lands down to a meter, and our team, and other rigorous science teams, always measure down to a meter. It's much more work, much more expensive in time and labor and lab costs - and it's a much more accurate assessment of soil carbon. There is a lot more soil carbon in our soils, and much, much more soil carbon to be accrued in healthy, well-managed pastures, than this Nature paper suggests. More to come.