[Marxism] How to (do) ranching right

DW dwaltersmia at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 20:39:16 MDT 2018


Bill,
 John doesn't know where John is going, how could you possibly know?

Seriously, both my article and the video (you didn't watch it either, I
note) were addressing primarily soil fertility. As an aspect of this is the
sequestration of carbon on the soil. As the number of ruminants (cows,
sheep, deer, bison, etc) in the world is only about the same or some more
than it was 400 years ago, clearly the amount of methane burped off by such
animals (yes, mostly from their mouths, not flatulence from their asses)
was "digested" and metabolized by the ecosystem without much problem (the
"life" of methane is about half that of CO2 in the atmosphere). But the CO2
levels were far less, or about half, of what they are today. Methane is
absorbed by *healthy* soil, Bill. It is consumed by methanotrophs, a kind
of bacteria most of which exists in the soil...if the soil hasn't be
poisoned by exposure to the sun and killed off chemically by the
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and pesticides farmers seem to employ
(and cut large checks too the big ag chemical companies for their
privilege) . Oh...and chemically produced nitrogen fertilizer.

The science on the *rate* at which methanotroph absorption and breakdown
(they basically derive all their energy and carbon from methane) takes
place is something that is relatively knew. I don't know the rates of
absorption (% of absorption per total emission of methane per animal). I
simply don't have that number. But if the amount of CO2 is absorbed (as per
the video and other sources) is as high as claimed, it doesn't matter how
much methane is output per head of cattle. The amount of carbon
sequestration is so high that it off sets the methane production.

But none of that occurs with the way we farm, and the way meat is produced
now. And that is my point...YOUR point is at least valid.

David



More information about the Marxism mailing list