http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Although, more in general terms than re the pros and cons of meat consumption.
There are of course other environmental drawbacks of livestock grazing, with or without "appropriate management techniques," a key one being that it is a quite energy-inefficient way of producing calories of food. Nonetheless, I don't think the realistic scale of what could be done to cut back on meat production would have very big impacts, compared, for example, to a phased-in $20 per barrel revenue-neutral tax on oil (and the appropriate equivalent for other forms of carbon energy) in North America alone.
Allan Savory's experience would appear to add marginally to the case against relying on vegetarianism as a major contributor to helping confront AGW.
Your query uses the words, "seasonally dry." I equate this with the word "arid."
The maximum number of cattle that the Lazy B ranch in Arizona/New Mexico ever had on its range was 2,200 head. This was on a ranch of 160 square miles. At 640 square acres to the square mile you can see that equates to 46.5 cows per square mile or one cow for every 14 acres. That is the maximum carrying capacity for the arid land in the Chihuahuan desert near the Mexican border. I dare say that it would be less in the Sonoran and Mohave deserts.
In the late 19th century the land in SE Arizona and SW New Mexico was irreversibly overgrazed by ranchers who were ignorant. They helped contribute to the desertification of the grasslands and turned them into desert scrublands. I fear any scheme that would make matters worse. Deserts evaporate far more water from the ground than falls from the sky. In my home area of the San Simon valley in Arizona the sun can evaporate 100" per year from the ground while the average rainfall is 10". It takes grasses a long, long, long time to recover from drought alone, let alone livestock...even those ranches using the very best range management procedures. I have personally tried to restore the native grasses (bush muhly, sideoats grama, sacaton, and blue grama) on my land with varying success. Most of the problems arise because of erosion that is caused by a lack of groundcover to hold the loam in place.
As far as meat goes...I love a good steak and eat a lot of chicken. The fact of the matter is though that the best rangeland, like the best farmland, will be found East of the 100th meridian. Rain makes all the difference.
Thanks for your question.
I think it is brilliant, grasses evolved along side herbivores and do not do well without them.
Industrial meat production is wrong, and unhealthy for us (fed with GM corn and soy and filled with hormones and antibiotics) while pasture fed animals are rich with nutrients and omega 3 oils.
try this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
Man is an omnivore and we evolved to eat meat, I respect vegetarians who have ethical reasons.
It is certainly an interesting concept, and is almost certainly necessary to avoid mass starvation.
I watched a TED talk the other day: www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_g reen_the_world_s_deserts_and_revers e_climate_change.html (please paste and remove spaces, I fear link rot)
The basic gist of it is that, in areas that are seasonally dry, we can use livestock, where natural herd animals are absent or underpopulated, to restore healthy grasslands, by carefully mimicking natural patterns of herd animal movement (large numbers of animals clustered together, and moved when grass supplies are exhausted).
I know that one reason that some people are vegetarians is concern about the environmental impact of meat vs plant food sources. Obviously, modern industrial meat production has significant environmental drawbacks, but where appropriate management techniques are used, does this change your mind at all about the environmental impact of meat consumption?
