This particular installment of The Curious Case of the Vegan War on Regenerative Agriculture is very near and dear to my heart. My addressing “Mic the Very Confused Vegan Propagandist” is a certainly few years tardy!
He was one of the first vegans to publicly attack Regenerative Agriculture on one of his infamous YouTube videos, even though he didn’t know what the term stood for at the time (and barely knows its meaning now).
Back then he was just being petulant about Ethical Omnivores’ clear moral and environmental superiority over him and his Industrial-Agriculture-reliant cult. So here is the awkward video that started it all. My apologies for the 12 minutes you will never get back. Maybe treat it as the stand-up comedy that it is so that it might be a bit more palatable.
In this video, Mic states how the globalization of the food system is bad and that he’s all about environmental sustainability. But then it digresses to complete and utter nonsense from there. He didn’t go into vegan agriculture here, but he did in some of his more recent videos. I’ll get to that in a bit.
Throughout this whole video, he drums on about how “Ethical Omnivores eat against their own set of morals.” He uses a variety of examples–taken right from the parroted vegan script–about animals raised in factory farms, cute baby animals being killed, and so on. Basically, Mic’s using all that to try to demonstrate that you can’t call yourself ethical–or that an Ethical Omnivore can’t possibly be true to ourselves–if you don’t know where every bite of our food well and truly comes from… and that doesn’t mean from the grocery store. I found that so ironic and hypocritical.
See Mic, that “knowing where your food comes from” is part and parcel of our own tenet: Eat locally, seasonally, and regeneratively. Make sure to source our food from farms where we are very certain about how the animals were raised and treated, from birth to slaughter. It’s not rocket science. It’s like Mic thinks us Ethical Omnivores blindly source all our foods from the grocery store, only picking out organic labels just so we can call ourselves “ethical.” It’s quite amusing, really.
What’s the most ironic and hypocritical thing about Mic’s cute little “critique” of us EOMers is how he conveniently fails to hold vegans anywhere near to the same standard as he expects us omnivores to be. Yep, his only mantra is the predictable, “Just don’t eat animals!”
Here’s what he’s not saying to his vegans: “Kill lots of animals via Industrial monoculture because it’s all accidental. Support shipping food that’s completely out of season from all over the world, it’s okay, I’ll just turn a blind eye. Use as much petroleum to do so! Drive the cost of third-world staples like quinoa so high that the locals can’t afford it because it’s so much more vegan. While we’re at it, why don’t we support child and slave labour! But by all means, don’t ever eat a locally, regeneratively raised, humanely-dispatched animal that offers you 10 times the nutrition that your third-world theft- and scorched-earth monoculture diet could never compete with!”
He has a funny little ditty in there where he digs out the definition of “exploitation” for us. Cue the vegan script and incessant crying that we don’t know what exploitation is. Want to know a little factoid for you that we EOMers are well too aware of? Very few diets are more exploitive than the one that relies on the tofu fridge at a big box grocer, that’s for sure!
Here are some excellent links spelling out exactly what the vegan diet is all about. I’ll tell you this much: it has nothing to do with sustainability or animal welfare and is certainly not concerned with human rights.
The vegan craze is a self-serving corporate con
The dark side of plant-based food– it’s more about money than you think
The veganism boom does more for food company profits than the planet
Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa?
How vegan evangelists are propping up the ultra-processed food industry
Speaking of diets, Mic sure took his time spelling out how the vegan “plant-based” diet was superior in every way by citing multiple highly questionable studies to support his claims. What a way to round off the scripted vegan rant, isn’t it?
Seriously, Mic’s little tirade wouldn’t be complete without his detouring towards the conventional Standard American [Canadian/European] Diet and completely away from the Ethical Omnivore version. Referencing the Seventh Day Adventists’ “recommend nutritional guidelines for optimal health” as recommended by Ellen White’s ghost pushing Kellogg’s anti-masturbatory cornflake diet was the cherry on top.
Here is the best breakdown of this nonsense that I’ve ever come across, all thanks to Belinda Fettke. Thou Shalt not discuss Nutrition ‘Science’ without understanding its driving force
Mic even had the audacity to use the old worn out and debunked statement by the Academy of Dietetics and Nutrition which stated veganism (and vegetarianism) is perfectly acceptable for all stages of life. As if it’s solid proof that we, as biological omnivores, now have no need for animal products and can suddenly consume a diet that is so adverse to our nutritional needs because some upper echelons say so. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
Not one singular, legitimate health organization on the planet earth advocates for veganism over a whole food omnivore diet. Not one, except the British and American Dietetics Associations which, as we now well know, should never be counted as legitimate health organizations due to their “scientific” studies being based purely on religious belief.
Funny thing to note: The Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published a retraction paper of their 2003 Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: vegetarian diets paper. But, then they quickly retracted that! Does anyone else see the irony: the public retraction of a retraction paper? So much second-guessing on their part it’s hard to know what to think of their truths for what’s “best” for the human diet!
According to RetractionWatch.com, the authors removed the paper due to “inaccuracies and omissions” and explained they were to do some major revisions on it. They also were supposed to release a new version of the paper sometime in 2016. That was five years ago. They still haven’t published it yet.
What’s even funnier is that the authors were not told what the nature of the inaccuracies and omissions were. This is because it wasn’t the authors who made the decision to remove the paper; they were directed to do so by the Academy Positions Committee of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Very, very interesting.
You can read more here: Nutritionist group pulls position statement on vegetarian diets for “inaccuracies and omissions” – RetractionWatch.com
In other news, the WHO (World Health Organization) pulled their support of the EAT-Lancet report due to international outrage by many health professionals. Then there are the countless, tragic, and perfectly preventable vegan child deaths that we’re all too aware of.
We also know now, after 10 years of heavy pushing by the vegan movement, how millions of people, as well as former vegan influencers, provide astounding testimonials of the insane amount of damage veganism does to the body and brain. I am one of those people; we have many, many more in our community.
In other later videos, he’s done and mentioned some stuff about this fantastical veganic agriculture. And yet, out of the other side of his mouth, he says it’s perfectly okay to not worry so much about promoting or implementing it. Again, as mentioned above, so long as nobody is eating animals!
Mic has waved the flag about him being some kind of “expert” in environmental sustainability, but with his track record, we know that’s pretty questionable in itself. There has been no indication whatsoever, as with all other vegans I’ve come across, that he has offered to support any form of sustainable agriculture; much less the elusive veganic farming pipe dream.
I will say this now though: even though I do not see veganic farming being scalable nor something that will truly catch on in any meaningful way–especially among vegans who can barely support local, organic farming–I can see that it is an attempt at some form of sustainable agriculture. Therefore, I am in support of it where it is practiced; not just waved around as a utopian-theory flag by vegans who don’t even know what it means (or what it involves).
Mic has over the years made many attempts at attacking Regenerative Ag. He like Earthling Ed awkwardly went after Allan Savory more than once. Sheldon Firth said it best in these two videos that were addressed to Mic directly.
Mic’s latest brilliantly epic failure, where he tries to debunk regenerative Grazing is true comic gold. He and some random Indian dude set out to totally debunk all aspects of regenerative grazing from the ground up. I’ll tell you, I was certainly excited because good counterarguments really help to strengthen my game. In this video, they go after the White Oak Pastures research paper. This is a very in-depth paper and you know Mic and random Indian dude are in trouble because again, the video is 12 minutes long so… I can say I’ve seen a lot of very bizarre attempts at debunking by the vegan community but this one did win the award for ‘absolutely nothing covered’ I literally watched it twice in fear I nodded off and missed something. Then I shared the video with my EOM community to see if they could find some nuggets of debunking brilliance I may have missed and they were as confounded as I was. Nada, nothin, zip, zero, that’s all folks and the fat lady sang a song of befuddlement. For 12 minutes they basically made the case for Regenerative Grazing, so we in the Regenerative Movement thank you Mic and random Indian dude. We thank you very much. I’m not going to share the video for several reasons. Firstly I already shared one and I’m not going to boost his YouTube views if I can help it, secondly, I would like to spare you the 12 minutes in the Twilight Zone and thirdly, it really is that ridiculous. Google it if you are really that interested in cementing in your mind how ill-informed Mic the Vegan really is about our incredible Regenerative Path. One he has no interest in being on, regenerative crop agriculture or otherwise.
For the science behind Regenerative Agriculture, I would like to direct you to our earlier article, where the White Oak Pasture Study is mentioned among many others.
As previously mentioned, we also discuss Regenerative Grazing and Holistic Management in an earlier blog in this series that covered Earthling Ed’s failed attempts at the same fool’s errand. It’s no use repeating ourselves too much here, so please check out the following link.
Curious Case of the Vegan War on Regenerative Ag: Earthling Ed vs. Allan Savory
So, my friends and loyal followers, that concludes this installment of why vegans are so obsessed with us Ethical Omnivores, and why Regenerative Agriculture puts the fear of God, and of Reason and Sustainability in their little black, cultist hearts.
~ Lana Joe Salant (EOM Founder)
Whaddya Know… Mic the Vegan Responded to Us on Facebook!
I wanted to pop in and share some really entertaining conversations that went down on the Ethical Omnivore Facebook page. You know why?
I’ll tell you: Guess who decided to show up: Mic the Vegan himself. You read that write.
Naturally, we decided to have a bit of fun with him and get him engaged in some of his go-to arguments. Nay, we (plus several of his devout followers) decided to absolutely annihilate and clean the floor with him. You really shouldn’t be surprised that Mic didn’t have a stick to lean on after I, in particular, was through with him.
Here’s how it all went down. Pulled right off the page itself.
Mic the Vegan’s response:
I know you are on the defensive and probably mean well but this is simply riddled with inaccuracies and sidesteps my biggest concerns. The most obvious of error is that you claimed the 2016 position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics never came out. Well, it did (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/) and it added a section about how vegan diets are good for the environment. Main point, you act as if the claim of vegan suitability for all stages of life was debunked by the corrections…well after corrections they still say, “these diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle.” You then use this mistaken health claim as a crutch for ethically justifying the killing animals for food when in fact you don’t need to eat them. A very shaky foundation IMO.
You decided to focus on my older videos which are a dated, easy target but completely ignore my modern claims in my video “Regenerative Grazing Debunked” which you have convinced yourself isn’t worth addressing at all because you say there was “absolutely nothing covered”? Or maybe you just felt like not doing the work? After all, I see zero real studies cited in your post, just opinion pieces or news articles. The biggest points here are that the methane emissions, carbon storage limitations, and land use make the regenerative promises fall short and make them dangerous for the climate. Greenhouses gases drive climate catastrophe above all else, you can’t ignore this.
1. Methane: You have not addressed the exorbitant methane emissions from grazed animals which are higher than grain fed ones. In particular, the fact that methane is 86x as powerful as CO2 over 20 years (https://www.epa.gov/…/understanding-global-warming…) – a critical time frame. Or maybe it is ‘nothing’ that we may be undercounting livestock methane by 39-90%? (https://www.issuelab.org/resources/36458/36458.pdf )
2. Carbon Storage: You ignored the soil carbon saturation issue at around 13 years where no more carbon is stored on these farms but livestock continues to emit greenhouse gases – is that saying nothing? The White Oak Pastures Frontier study mentions this so why not address it? The whole thing falls apart at 13 years!
2. Land Use: Is it saying nothing that meeting demand with a system that uses 2.5x as much land as the White Oak Pastures Frontier study found would cover ALL arable land? The 30% of our ice-free land on Earth used for livestock (https://www.pnas.org/…/2013/12/12/1308149110.full.pdf) would jump to 75% of all ice-free land which is absolutely ridiculous since that includes mountains, swamps, etc.
No mention of these in your article, just a delusional comment about how my video with these points and many scientific citations was…’making a case for regenerative grazing.’ I clearly didn’t say ‘nothing,’ I raised a lot of very valid concerns that you failed to address.
As for your point about my expertise, I never claimed to be a major expert in sustainability but you left out that I do have a Bachelor of Science in Sustainability and while I don’t flaunt it, I have spent a reasonable amount of time on the ground doing thermal composting according to the Soil Food Web principles using microbiology principles, thermometers, microscopes, etc. – a method that is all about restoring carbon through microbial inoculation. I also did some time at the Rodale Institute helping collect soil carbon core samples for their Farming Systems Trial. I even used to work on an organic farm if that means anything. I just wanted to fill in some blanks there.
Finally, referring to Dr. Tushar Mehta as a ‘random Indian guy’ shows the level of journalism you are operating at. I beg you, reader, if you are convinced by this level of information you may be a victim of your own confirmation biases which I challenge everyone to reflect on. I don’t deny that vegans need to move away from the industrialized food system and use regenerative techniques AS I COVERED IN MY VIDEO but if you have read this far I hope you realize that this EOM article did not debunk or even address my main claims, claims that are very pertinent to fighting climate change.
Oh, joy oh, joy oh, joy! To think that Mic even had a fighting chance!
So we took the time to write quite a rebuttal response to Mic. Here it is:
Mic, I see so much about those three key issues that you think you know all about but don’t have a clue.
1. Methane: It’s a red herring. That’s right, it’s only a relevant concern in the context of CAFOs (including feedlots). But when applying it to the pasture scenario where livestock are being grazed and helping to promote healthy soil and thereby healthy plant communities. Do you know how plants photosynthesize? They take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen; they also release water vapour. Both oxygen and H2O react to form hydroxyl radicals (OH-). The hydroxyl radicals react with CH4 to oxidize it well before it hits the atmosphere, rendering it safe. When this oxidation occurs, it causes CH4 + OH- to produce CO2 and H2O. Remind me again what plants take in via photosynthesis? That’s right, CO2 (carbon dioxide). Not only that, but methanotrophic bacteria also take in methane and render it safe. You also conveniently left out the fact that CH4 has a half-life of ~10 years. The lifespan of CO2 is over 100+ years. Tell me which may be the most to worry about, especially if there are insufficient perennial green photosynthetic solar panels?
Also, please explain to me how methane is such a huge thing to get your tighty-whities in a twist over when historical records from 150+ years ago–you can Google it yourself–have shown that methane levels were very low, even when there were many more ruminants on the landscape grazing and pooping and burping up methane than there is today? Let that sink in a bit.
2. Carbon storage. We did not address it because it was already addressed in a different blog about Earthling Ed vs. Allan Savory. Did you happen to read that at all? Sounds like you didn’t. We also addressed it in our FCRN grazing blog. This is why we didn’t feel the need to repeat ourselves in this current blog. Basically, it’s another red herring/strawman (rather a non-issue.) Do you know why? Because Nature doesn’t follow computer models. Computer models may show there’s this “saturation” point but we honestly don’t know if it even exists. I believe even the White Oaks Pasture study it hypothesized what you mentioned, based on the premise that scientists are not sure about this. Here is the quote: “However, over time, some of the carbon in the upper layer of soil will be buried more deeply in the soil, while the surface layer will become saturated with carbon and accumulate carbon at a slower rate. ” You and Ed are hanging on that piece of scientific hypothesis so desperately in hopes that you’re going to be right about your veganic agriculture BS and that regenerative agriculture that includes the aid of animals to help build and heal soil is going to be the losing team. As far as I’m aware, from many, many regenerative farms and ranches that are continuing to do what they’re doing, this carbon “saturation” is bunk. As long as plants are being stimulated to grow and produce strong roots, add to the humus organic layer of the soil, soil biology is being fed via responsible regenerative agriculture soil health principles (including permaculture principles and the holistic management decision-making framework), they’re going to be pumping carbon into the soil in the best way they’ve known how for billions of years. How can a computer model prove otherwise? It can’t. But Nature sure can.
3. Land use. Yet another red herring, and a non-issue. You don’t seem to understand how ruminants don’t need to have forests, mountains, wetlands, riparian areas, and so on and so forth cleared so they can graze. They’re not 60-foot machinery like you see out in the crop fields. Animals have legs; they’re also incredibly flexible in how and where (and when) they can graze or browse. Have you ever heard of silvopasture? It’s an ancient system that has been practiced around the world for thousands of years. I suggest you look it up. Not only that, but there’s millions of acres of cropland that has been “created” out of greed for growing oilseeds to meet the ethanol boom market. That means millions of acres of brush, grassland and pastures cleared and plowed under just to grow a soil-killing monoculture crop for oil. How sad and pathetic is that? If you’re going to be in full support of going against globalization and our enormous reliance on fossil fuels, then you should be in agreement that such wasted acres of monoculture crop should be “re-wilded” back to forest or grassland or savannah, depending on the environment and the land’s historical plant community context. In order to help with the re-wilding process, domesticated grazing herbivores act as THE BEST proxy for helping to heal the land and encourage it to go back to what it once was, or at least what it should be (we’ve really no idea how diverse or “wild” landscapes were prior to the White Settler Tsunami of the New World). There simply aren’t enough wild herbivores–plus they’re very, very hard to manage, you have no idea if you think the opposite–to do the job. I’ve talked at great length in my own blog about this very subject I highly recommend to check out and read thoroughly. https://praisetheruminant.com/…/the-beef-vs-vegetable… Yes, it’s a blog, but it’s written by someone who has done an incredible amount of research into the subject.
I’m not looking to get into a pissing contest with either you or your followers. I leave this comment here for you to contemplate and acknowledge that the people you’re picking a fight with here on EOM know more about this stuff than you can shake a stick at. 😊
And one more thing. We give Eat Right Nutrition a lot of shit on this page (and in general) and give them next to no credence on many of their stances, especially about children. https://www.facebook.com/368684079835419/posts/3636302253073569/?d=n
I merely mentioned them because you did and because like with every other health institution worth a shit they do not choose veganism over a balanced omnivore diet and certainly don’t even mention it without warnings and supplementation urging so very far from a glowing recommendation. https://www.eatright.org/…/does-my-child-need-a-supplement
As I said, Mic didn’t have a stick to stand on. But oh Mic, he just doesn’t learn, does he?
He had the audacity to reply to my comment with this cute little gem (from Mic the Vegan):
1. This reliance on methanotrophs is a total pipe dream. Nowhere has anyone presented any evidence that they can meaningfully lower emissions. It also simply ignores thermodynamics and assumed that all gas released from the cow’s mouth (main source of methane) magically drops into the soil where it is neutralized. This is a bit like saying because grass eats CO2, my gator’s exhaust emissions are all sucked up by grass. NO WAY. This is worse because the soil methanotrophs are UNDERGROUND.
2. Soil carbon saturation isn’t a computer model, the White Oak Pastures study you guys are all praising literally shows and mentions it. The real soil measurements at their farm show soil carbon storage petering out to nothing and the authors mention the ~13 years figure. Sure, maybe over a century we can get some extra build up but ain’t nobody got time for that. Meanwhile a vegan diet scenario would free up so much damn land that we could offset all emissions by planting trees and allowing nature to rewild.
3. Yes I have heard of silvopasture, yes I have been to one but you completely ignored the figures here…2.5x the land use when we already use 30% of all ice-free land means we would use all land where photosynthesis occurs, forest or otherwise for animals. We would be dedicating an absurd amount of land and humanity wouldn’t be able to function. You also can’t just have a high productivity silvopasture in a pine forest or many other forests that cover much of our land. It isn’t the case that every forest drops chestnuts for pigs. This means the productivity would be lower than White Oaks and use EVER MORE LAND. All the while we would have to increase the ruminant population by several magnitudes because it takes longer to reach slaughter weight in these systems and the ruminants are pumping a greenhouse gas that would accelerate climate catastrophe. This is one of the fastest ways to melt the ice caps.
What I’m gathering is that all of the retorts to my concerns are based on these appeals to perfection, a situation where Allan Savory himself has blessed the grounds, all the ruminant burp into the soil, all forests magically produce enough calories for large mammals, the grassland soil just keeps on storing carbon even though that isn’t what we literally measure. This is a dream just like being an ethical omnivore is a dream which simply can’t be the case when you can choose to no kill animals.
Naturally, I took him down a few pegs; fresh off the press and just made this morning. Here’s my response:
Really? Methanotrophs? Is that all you got out of my comment to you? That’s rather disappointing, considering that I talked about a lot more than just methanotrophs. I talked about hydroxyl radicals, about how plant photosynthesis helps with sequestering and oxidizing methane. Like, those billions of green photosynthetic solar panels you can easily, *easily* found on any pasture, rangeland, shrubland, forest, etc. And you had the audacity to bring up the strawman methanotrophs argument? Oh, dear. 🤦♀️ Looks like you completely ignored everything that I just talked about, and cherry-picked out a nice strawman to try to take down. Should I be surprised? Nope…
Soil methanotrophic bacteria, btw, are not “underground.” They’re on the surface down to only a few inches of the soil. Any soil biologist will tell you this if you ask them. This basically makes your statement false… even though the fact that methanotrophs do play a smaller role than hydroxyl radicals, just like it says in this lovely paper from 2015: https://www.frontiersin.org/…/10…/fmicb.2015.01346/full
“Soil Carbon Saturation” (🤦♀️) is indeed via computer models and is basically a hypothesis that is not yet known to be true yet. Please read again what I quoted above, as that basically answered your concern, and put a big fracture in that particular crutch you’re desperately leaning on. Nature doesn’t follow computer models, and we all should know that Nature is always full of surprises. My bets’ on the fact that you are dead wrong and nature will show that this “soil carbon saturation” is bologna. Plus there’s a big difference between “petering out to nothing” and “slowing down.” Again, this is what they say in that White Oaks Pasture study about what you claim:
“However, over time, some of the carbon in the upper layer of soil will be buried more deeply in the soil, while the surface layer will become saturated with carbon and accumulate carbon at a slower rate.”
Read again: “S-L-O-W-E-R R-A-T-E.” Okay? Did you get that part? Because in the next paragraph they mention that it will SLOW DOWN in a decade or two. Not stop completely. BIG difference! Even a preschooler can see that!
Also, where did it say 13 years? I didn’t see that anywhere in the WOP study. The only thing I got when I did a Crtl+F in that document was the tail end of 2013 or page 13 several times…
Yeah Mic, all these so-called “retorts” are totally based on appeals to perfection. Look who’s talking about stuff in the context of the appeal to perfection fallacy, buddy! Not to mention cherry-picking and pulling sh*t out of his own ass to make himself look smart (even though he doesn’t have a clue…).
You know what? Allan Savory has far more science and experience that proves his so-called “theories” are far, FAR more practical than your junk “science” and “facts.” So yeah, he is on blessed grounds here, you got that right. You sound terribly jealous!
Being an ethical omnivore is far, far more of a reality than veganism. Veganism is the fantasy dreamland you live in. Here at EOM, we’re based on facts and logic, not lies and fallacies and crybaby emotions like with you. You got your ass handed to you on a silver platter, and you know it. 😊
ETA: Really sneaky of you to pull in the land-use argument right after I commented. Nice going.
No, I have not ignored anything. I believe that ball’s still in your court. What you’re blatantly ignoring (and basically repeating yourself in hoping for a different result, the definition of insanity and stupidity), with all that nonsense is how good grazing management that gets the animals to bunch up and trample and eat then quickly move on–what is called “mob grazing,” also known by many other different names–causes a HUGE increase in forage biomass, forage yield and quantity, so much so it would blow your mind and your silly 2.5x-more-land-needed argument right out the window. Not only that, but you didn’t seem to understand how ruminants have legs and can move; how they’re incredibly flexible in where, when, and how they can graze (or browse). It is a big lie to say that productivity would be lower. It won’t. Productivity is only lowered via mismanagement; overgrazing, or overbrowsing, or even under-grazing (or under-browsing). Productivity in diverse ecosystems, not just confining yourself to the trees, can be made pretty darn high just by good management.
The fact you don’t seem to understand either is that grazing/browsing ruminants do not “USE” land in the way you’re thinking. They do not USE land like a house uses land, like roads or open-pit mines or crop farming literally USES land. By the concept that “animals have legs,” therefore can move on, they can be managed on land where they will eat, poop, trample and live temporarily before being quickly moved onto the next parcel. The land gets rested for quite a period of time, allowing for wildlife and wild flora to flourish, or food crops to be grown before a community or farmer decides its time to let them return again. Do you get where I’m going? If not, then you are in serious need of schooling in regenerative agriculture.
You know what else? I sure hope the ruminant animal population increases. It’s been a very long time since we’ve had a multitude of ruminant animals on the landscape. That said, a lot of crop fields could be turned into perennial pasture too. (That alone also debunks your “but we need vast more land we don’t have” silly argument.)
Read again about the asinine GHG argument you keep bringing up that I basically squashed in my reply above. In regards to pasture animals, how plants grow, the SIMPLE fact that grass grows back after being grazed (and puts down roots in the meantime), that “Oh, but, but, the ruminants are pumping a greenhouse gas that would accelerate climate catastrophe” argument of yours is a moot point. It’s a fractured crutch you’re still leaning on hoping to support your weight.
Any knowledge gleaned from learning about complex ecology would teach you that ruminants are just part of the carbon cycle. They’re not polluting factories like you’re making them out to be. It’s time you bone up on your ecology knowledge and figure that out.
As I said, you got your ass handed to you, and you damn well know it.
Of course, there’s a lot more I could’ve said, and I could’ve gotten way more in-depth, but the reality is, we’ve basically already covered all of that stuff in previous blogs. It’s too bad that Mic is so determined to repeat the same BS in hopes that I’d agree with him.
We highly recommend he get better educated in pasture/grassland ecology in the context of ruminant animals, as well as regenerative grazing management. It might suit him has a “environmental sustainability expert” of some sort. Then again, it wouldn’t fit into his “I’m Mic the VEGAN” mantra now, would it?
This was fun. Can’t wait for the next installment!