What the Fake Meat Tycoons Don’t Get About Regenerative Agriculture

Hardly a week goes by without some form of media announcing that cows are destroying the planet. Recently, a writer named Gabriel Rosenberg delivered a hit piece for New Republic media titled “The Myth of Regenerative Ranching.” The label “grass-fed beef” is a “branding exercise,” he says, and not really a way to solve beef’s environmental problem. Why are such articles so ubiquitous?

In a recent Financial Times, British food journalist Tim Hayward let us know in his opinion piece Lab-grown meat isn’t about sustainability, it’s big business.  “The holy grail,” he writes, “is replacing the meat we consume with a proprietary product, owning the IP on meat.” Thus he says, “the PR push, the not-so-gentle steering of the discourse towards part-time veganism as a lifestyle statement, a non-specific promoter of ‘wellbeing’, rather than anything to do with morals, ethics, politics or animal welfare.” 

So, in this article, Rosenberg contends that regenerative ranching is a myth. Let’s do a comparison with our current agricultural model:

Industrial agriculture is the chemical manipulation of soils, plants and animals in order to increase productivity. Its practices do not work to enhance or support Nature as a whole, biological system. Thus, industrially raised animals become sick, requiring drugs to stop Nature’s attempt to kill an unhealthy organism not contributing to the web of life.

By not working with Nature, crops need synthetic fertilizers, and in many cases, irrigation. Soils begin to die, become compacted, unable to hold water, and plants fail to thrive. They develop pests and diseases. Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and genetic manipulation of plants manage the rebellion of Nature against UnNature. Already, industrial agriculture practices are poisoning some soils beyond recovery.

Having destroyed the soil’s water, mineral and nutrient cycles, we cannot grow, raise and provide nutrient-dense food.

Nevertheless, most Americans are eating the products of this artificial system, having been led to believe that it is “scientifically verified,” healthier, more affordable, and necessary for now and in the future. 

Regenerative agriculture is about healing this travesty. It’s about healing animals that are dealt with so heartlessly by factory farms, and putting them back in their natural environment on pasture, with gratitude and respect. It’s about restoring biodiversity and the life of the soil, so that cycles of growth and decay, with all of the attendant microorganisms and life forms (like bugs and earthworms), recover. It’s about healing farming communities that lost their vitality when Big Ag came to town, and healing farmers who have been sucked into a bankrupting system that drives many of them to suicide. It’s about giving farmworkers a decent life and livelihood instead of slave wages and chronic diseases from toxic chemicals.

Those who attack regenerative agriculture as “corporate greenwashing” are either without principles or else deeply uninformed. So, let’s take a look at what version New Republic is paying for. Rosenberg’s final paragraph reveals, most likely, why this piece was written. 

Defining “Natural”

Rosenberg’s angle is about a lawsuit leveled at the National Park Service, alleging neglect of the indigenous Tule elk of Point Reyes National Seashore in California. In the state’s prolonged drought, elk are alleged to have died due to loss of forage and water because their territory is restricted. An 8 ft fence was erected both to protect them and to keep them from moving onto lands that since 1962 have been leased by the National Park Service to small-scale, locally owned cattle and dairy farms. 

The problem, says Rosenberg, is that “foodies,” who love their locally grown grass-fed meat and dairy, are pressuring politicians to protect the status of the farms. The opposition wants the entire peninsula “rewilded,” as in: kick out the farmers and let the elk range free. An added wrinkle: the indigenous Miwok peoples who originally stewarded the elk and coastal lands, are pushing to be recognized and allowed to manage the elk again. 

Although having already written that the Point Reyes farms represent of “an agrarian ideal of ecologically and ethically sustainable animal agriculture,” Rosenberg now says that the conflict between the farms and the elk is an example of an “anti-wildlife bent in ranching.” His contention is that it is not possible for commodity agriculture to care about preserving ecosystems, wildlife, and cultures (thus lumping industrial and regenerative agriculture in together).

The Ignorance of the Past, the Promise of the Future

We’re living in a time when ignorant and destructive practices of the past are entangled with healing promises of the future—if only we can find the imagination and courage to let go of where we are stuck. I have to acknowledge that throughout history, agricultural and other human endeavors have grievously impinged on and exploited wildness--not to mention the social justice issue concerning the rights of the Miwok. In this case, all three contenders in Point Reyes provide a product or experience that could—or already does, benefit the local community. 

Government needs to evolve to manage these types of conflicts with wisdom and justice. There is a new awareness about the ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples. There are new conversations about the need for agriculture to integrate with wildness and safeguard biodiversity . . .striking more of a balance between both “to ensure long-term sustainability.” 

One of the most revolutionary moments for the environment in the past decade was Allan Savory’s 2013 TED talk “How to green the desert and reverse climate change,” which garnered millions of views and launched the regenerative grazing movement. A Zimbabwean ecologist and independent scientist, Savory’s name invariably appears in anti-meat types of articles, usually with a dismissive label like “controversial,” “ex-soldier,” or in this case, Rosenberg calls him, “a rancher.” 

Savory’s message: grasslands and ruminants evolved symbiotically, 55 million years ago, on every continent except for Antarctica. They literally built the soils of the world. Bison, muskox, giraffe, moose, reindeer, and more, with their four-chambered stomachs, their mouths full of microbial saliva, maintain their food source by stimulating the growth of grass with grazing, and thereby create microbially-rich, humus-building root systems that turn soil carbon-black with fertility (as in, carbon sequestered). 

When humans began controlling herds to manage their food supply, Nature’s design for sustainability was disrupted. Overgrazing resulted, leading to compacted, infertile soils and worse: soil degradation led to the collapse of many of the world’s greatest civilizations.

Today, 1/3 of the land mass on the earth is grasslands, 70% of these are degraded and turning to desert, and this includes about 40% in the continental U.S. A United Nations study states that, “Desertification has emerged as an environmental crisis of global proportions (my emphasis) currently affecting an estimated 100 – 200 million people and threatening the lives and livelihoods of a much larger number.” 

It’s important to get this right: Savory’s talk was about addressing desertification through restoring ruminants’ original function as caretakers of soil. His method, holistically managing herds to mimic Nature’s original design, restores the life in soils, recharges water tables, renews ecosystems—and builds and sequesters carbon. The more restored soils, the more carbon sequestration, and less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

He is talking about massive healing of soils worldwide.

The naysayers don’t seem to grasp that soil is a living organism, nor what’s at stake: the more desert on the planet, the hotter the climate will become, shifting to permanent droughts, and causing mass starvation and wars. This is not a matter of greenhouse gases, but of a dying earth due to dying soil. Even if we halt all human-caused emissions, Nature’s systems will continue to break-down unless we deal with the damage caused. This is why we have to take a hard look at the popular exhortation to “eat less meat.” There is no technological fix or dietary shift that can restore the life in millions of acres of degraded soil. But holistically managed ruminants can.

As an argument, Rosenberg references two old and long-debunked studies about Savory’s method. Meanwhile, regenerative grazing has become a worldwide phenomenon, with the organization Savory.global healing nearly 40 million acres thus far, via a network of 50 training hubs. Twelve hubs are in the US, with seven more soon to join the group. 

Defining Marginal Lands

Missing the fact that “marginal, or “non-arable lands” are a term for grasslands, Rosenberg maintains that it would be better to reserve these instead for free-ranging bison and elk, with maybe some limited ranching. He does not seem to be aware of the size of these lands globally, nor that 2.1 billion people presently live on grasslands, primarily sustained by their herds. 

But let’s assume that he’s only talking about the U.S. In fact, there are already 20 publicly owned National Grasslands in America, totaling almost four million acres. The remainder totals about 350 million acres in private ownership. How could a national park system possibly sustain that much oversight? But regenerative farmers and ranchers, with government support and a mandate to restore and maintain the health of those lands, could take us a long way towards mitigating desertification. 

Methane, Nitrogen Runoff, Deforestation et al

Brief responses to Rosenberg’s repetition of other, well-worn arguments, which Diana Rodgers and Robb Wolf cover in greater detail in their book Sacred Cow.

Methane: Exciting scientific discoveries about the microbial basis of life processes reveal that methane from ruminants is part of a natural carbon cycle, indicating why billions of grazers around the world since prehistory did not previously cause global warming. Healthy grasslands harbor bacteria called methanotrophs, which break down methane. No surprise: Soil vitality damaged by synthetic fertilizers reduces such activity, and applications of microbially-rich manure enhances it.  

Nitrous oxide: 10-15 times more potent than methane and 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, it stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. In the US, over 80 percent of nitrous oxide emissions are a byproduct of industrial agriculture. The biggest culprits: increased use of synthetic fertilizer due to dying soils and the mismanagement of animal manure.  Appropriately-managed regenerative farms and dairies do not have this issue, because their mission is to maintain a healthy ecosystem. (Note: Point Reyes dairy farms described by Rosenberg as “polluting streams with manure runoff” cannot be defined as regenerative).

Deforestation of the Amazon: Fortunately, mega-corporations like JBS, the world’s second largest beef exporter, have been feeling the heat from consumers. This June, it announced a target of zero illegal deforestation by 2025 for its secondary suppliers in South America, in addition to an earlier commitment  it has already made to the Amazon. It has also announced a commitment to invest $100 million by 2030 in R & D “to assist producer efforts to strengthen and scale regenerative farming practices.” 

Can’t Scale, Too Expensive: Rosenberg winds down by repeating a well-worn argument about the impossibility of scaling up or making grass-fed beef affordable for our growing population. In addition to JBS’s commitment to regenerative agriculture, I want to emphasize that in 2020, industrial farmers (mostly rich ones) received more than 40% of their income — about 46.5 billion, from the government. 

Bottom line: There is money to make grass-fed beef affordable and to scale up if we choose health and common sense. “Stacking” enterprises, for example, described by renowned regenerative farmer Gabe Brown, are new sustainable ventures (like chickens or dog breeding) added to existing operations with minimal cost, land requirement or labor.

We’re at a Make-or-Break Moment

Rosenberg’s final shot is that regenerative farmers benefit from the demand for “holistic beef,” not because they care about the planet, but because the money is good in a niche market.

Without irony, his final paragraph: We need people to change their habits, but we’ll also need policy aimed specifically at reducing meat consumption through taxation, nudges toward animal-free diets, or, potentially, support for the proliferation of plant- or cell-based meat analogs. 

What’s it going to take to stop such propaganda? Eating less or pretend meat will not solve the climate crisis by any stretch. But if we put lots of livestock back in Nature, holistically managed, and healing the soils, it will address the terrifying threat of desertification, dying ecosystems and mass extinctions of wildlife, restoring health and sanity to farming practices. As the Audubon Society says, while putting their seal of approval on grass-fed beef in Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada and Montana supermarkets: “No cows, no grass, no birds.”

To which I might legitimately add: No cows, no grass, no people.

Rondi Lightmark has had multiple careers as a freelance writer, educator, grief counselor, photographer, and entrepreneur. After a life-changing meeting with Allan Savory six years ago, she began to focus on sharing his message. She lives on Vashon Island, Washington, where she created “The Whole Vashon Project,” an arts and education-based effort dedicated to showing island children that the community is visibly working to address the climate crisis. She strongly believes that the earth and her creatures are not machines to be manipulated, but teachers revealed through biological mysteries that we may never fully understand—but which we ignore at our peril.