All Grass-Fed Forms Of Raising Animals Is Worse For The Climate

Len, I really big fan of Mad Cowboy and your speech today was amazing. I heard and talked to people who say they can't get all their nutrition from plants. What do you say to people who eat small animals? Rabbits, goats, chickens, turkeys at least. And also the regenerative agriculture argument that we need to put animals back on land to reclaim it somehow or other. All right,

I'll take the first question first. Eating small animals makes no difference. Fleshes flesh. So, you know, the macronutrient profile of a rat won't be too different from, you know, a cow. Fleshes flesh. There's no need for flesh in the human diet. It serves no purpose. You just think of the macronutrient profile. You're getting no carbohydrates. You're getting excessive sulfuric, carcinogenic protein. You're getting excessive fat, too

much saturated fat. There's no role for animal. You're getting no fiber, you're getting no antioxidants. So there's no role for it. There's no need for it. The other question was, if I'm gonna say the other question, I'm sorry. About the regenerative agriculture. Yes, regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is a term that is loosely defined and used, you know, in a way that is ambiguous. There are certain

principles of regenerative agriculture that are good and there's such a thing as organic regenerative agriculture. In other words, it doesn't have to involve animals. So the principles of regenerative agriculture that are positive are not using similar to organic agriculture, not using fertilizer, not using chemical fertilizer, not using pesticides, using nitrogen fixing crops, not tilling the soil. All good things. But usually the term is used as

of agriculture, like really like all grass fed forms of raising animals, is worse for the climate than the horrendous feed lots. You know, you hear some people say, well, I don't eat feed lot beef, but I eat grass fed beef or I eat regenerative beef. It's actually worse. What the reading is actually worse. Now why is that? First, because the grass fed beef bilge more methane,

then the beef, then the cows that are eating grain. So you're contributing more methane. Also, although it's, it is, let me acknowledge that the animals themselves probably have better lives. The grass fed cows and the regeneratively raised cattle have better lives. Then, you know, they move around. But because they move around more, they take longer to fatten up, which means they live longer, which means they're

belching methane. So for those reasons. And also because they are contributing to over grazing and to the degradation of the land. Remember the, on the feed lots, the cattle are sometimes there even on cement, or they're on dirt. They're not grazing the land. They're not grazing the land into desert. Now, the regenerative farmers will say, well, we're not grazing the land into desert. Well, you're grazing

the land. You're not allowing the vegetation to grow. So in, in no way is regenerative animal agriculture helpful. It is destructive to the planet and grass fed beef is worse for the planet than even feed lot beef. Thank you.