>Small numbers of grazers may be consistent with healthy ecosystems and have minimal greenhouse gas impact, but only if their populations stay within ecologically defined limits.
https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ran...
>Small numbers of grazers may be consistent with healthy ecosystems and have minimal greenhouse gas impact, but only if their populations stay within ecologically defined limits.
https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ran...
If human livestock consumption were closely matched to natural grazer consumption, essentially acting as a 1:1 replacement, this argument makes more sense. I don’t think that’s been true for at least a century at this point though.
> Killing them and eating them is not compatible with the environmental benefits of grazing
which does not attempt to qualify the disagreement at all.
You're wildly off in your calculations because you've failed to account for replacement rate. It's 90 million heads of cattle with 30 million killed each year.
https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/rx913p...
I wonder if that number was higher before humans reduced the number of predators.