I encountered this when doing my master's thesis. The data showed higher cattle use in very low density forest than in completely open areas. I wanted to follow that up to see why. I wondered if a bit of shade helped the forage stay green longer.
I can tell you from my lawn that the grass under my Texas trees stays green longer and grows faster than the direct-sun grass. I think your hypothesis is worth exploring.
Silvopasture is an ancient practice that integrates trees and pasture into a single system for raising livestock. Pastures with trees sequester five to 10 times as much carbon as those of the same size that are treeless while maintaining or increasing productivity and providing a suite of additional benefits. Livestock continue to emit the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, but these are more than offset by carbon sequestration, at least until soil carbon saturation is achieved.
Silvopasture also offer financial benefits for farmers and ranchers. Livestock, trees, and other forest products, such as nuts, fruit, and mushrooms, generate income on different time horizons. And help protect farmers from risk. The health and productivity of both animals and the land improve.
Trees in silvopasture systems provide livestock with protection from sun and wind, which can increase animal comfort and improve production. Trees can provide shade in the summer and windbreaks in the winter, allowing livestock to moderate their own temperature. Heat stress in livestock has been associated with decreased feed intake, increased water intake, and negative effects on production, reproductive health, milk yields, fitness, and longevity.[4][5]
Certain tree types can also serve as fodder for livestock. Trees may produce fruit or nuts that can be eaten by livestock while still on the tree or after they have fallen. The leaves of trees may serve as forage as well, and silvopasture managers can utilize trees as forage by felling the tree so that it can be eaten by livestock, or by using coppicing or pollarding to encourage leaf growth where it is accessible to livestock.[1]
Well-managed silvopasture systems can produce as much forage as open-pasture systems under favorable circumstances. Silvopasture systems have also been observed to produce forage of higher nutritive quality than non-silvopasture forage under certain conditions. Increased forage availability has been observed in silvopasture systems compared to open-pasture systems under drought conditions, where the combination of shade from trees and water uptake from tree roots may reduce drought impacts.[1]
I'm all for the humane treatment of animals, but domestic sheep need to be sheared or they end up like Baarack here. Meanwhile, wool is a sustainable textile source, unlike synthetic fibers.
If we want domestic sheep to live good lives, it requires humans embracing sustainable practices quickly to address the climate crisis.
These people always neglect to mention that their endgame is the complete genocide of all domesticated animals since they literally cannot survive on their own without human caretaking, almost like we've evolved a symbiotic relationship with these creatures and trying to end that relationship because you personally find it morally objectionable will have disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world's biosphere...well except Antarctica, those penguins couldn't care less if the cows are being wiped out because "uNnAtUrAl!!!!!!"
ETA, you can tell these people are totally not eco fascists because they didn't dispute the charge of wanting to exterminate entire clades of the tree of life, they just started justifying it by ranting about why "the bad ones" "totally deserve it" because pregarnart. I'm sure you wouldn't find any genocidal dictator in recent history who has conjured the image of a barefoot and pregnant member of "the bad ones" to rant about how they're producing too many children, or that "the nation" isn't keeping pace enough, to rile a scare out of their audience, nosiree!
Nevermind how their position also involves exterminating service animals for also being domesticated, and fuck their disabled owners for "defying nature" or "being abusers", that epileptic who needs help calling medical assistance should have thought about how it makes some internet weirdo feels to see dogs doing things before they tried being allowed to live despite their condition!
Meat cows specifically should be wiped out for their methane production being so high. I've heard that if we managed to stop beef consumption we'd have something like a 10% decrease in emissions just from that alone.
It would actually probably be more than that if you’re talking global demand. So much deforestation is due to cattle (typically the land needed for their feed), not to mention repurposing some existing land used for cattle feed for human food.
Plus, all that feed needs to be transported, which influences the shipping industry.
Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.
Wouldn't you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world's biosphere?
I don't think we are - the previous comment is talking about the total genocide of all domesticated animals, which seems beyond sheep under solar panels.
We have billions of captive animals that will be forcibly impregnated every year in order to replace those thag are killed, and even under the most "humane" conditions will still be killed at a fraction of their natural lifespan, yet you consider cutting out the forced impregnation part in order to end the cycle of violence to be "genocide"?
You don't think that label might be more appropriately applied to the systematic killing of billions every yeat which will happen in perpetuity until we end animal agriculture?
You're right, it is much worse. The goal is to breed them as quickly as possible, use them for their wool while they are useful for it, and kill them much younger than their lifespan for their meat. I think it would be a kindess to slowly stop that torturous cycle.
"Genocide" only applies to humans. The correct term for animals is "extinction".
And I remind you: we humans control when and if our domestic livestock breed. And we let specific breeds of domestic livestock go extinct all the time. There are dozens of breeds of cows and chickens and sheep that are now extinct because they were replaced by other, more useful breeds - or the cultures that bred them were wiped out. Consider the Tautersheep, for example.
Let me be blunt. If scientists developed synthetic wool that was chemically identical to sheep wool but ten times cheaper, domestic sheep would be extinct within a decade. And nobody but sheep farmers would complain. So when carnists argue we have a moral duty to the species of domestic sheep to continue breeding them for human use I just roll my eyes.
The guy you're arguing with is the reason so many people simply tune out animal activists. He reminds me of the hippy character from Futurama on the poppers episode 😂
Your solutions are unreasonable. Nobody is going to finance rehoming and caring for billions of livestock animals. We can't even do that for our own species.
People who kill and exploit animals every day are always so ready to defend animals. Raising animals for killing, even if you take their wool during their lives, is genocide.
The problem is that we don't have a word for when we commit genocide, but then force-breed the same population to prevent it from extinction, only to repeat the killing again. A perpetual holocaust. We have some euphemisms like "breeding" and "husbandry" that focus of the reproduction but not in the killing. I'm open to suggestions.
Raising animals to harvest is cruel and unusual punishment but it isn't genocide. Genocide is the systematic and widespread extermination of a specific group. The fact that livestock animals outnumber us and their numbers are only growing should tell you we're not genociding them. Words have meaning.
The problem is that we don't have a word for when we commit genocide, but then force-breed the same population to prevent it from extinction, only to repeat the killing again. A perpetual holocaust. We have some euphemisms like "breeding" and "husbandry" that focus of the reproduction but not in the killing. I'm open to suggestions
Sheep have been domesticated for over 10,000 years and require regular shearing to continue living, otherwise their wool will overgrow and they eventually won't be able to eat or move.
They do, they just never say that part out loud because they know that blows their cover, they aren't animal rights believers, they're eco-fascists who believe that domesticated animals and anyone dependent on them should all die because "defying nature!"
If you don't want wool, just leave wild species to graze there instead. Then congratulations, you successfully achieve nothing and you can rest easy wearing your polyester shirt.
And remember, polyester is made from oil which makes rainbows when you pour it in water therfore: polyester is made of rainbows! And does no harm to anything ever. The end.
What's with the obsession with synthetic fabric? Cotton and linen make perfectly fine clothes without supporting the oil and gas industry or factory farming
What's with the obsession with synthetic fabric? Cotton and linen make perfectly fine clothes without supporting the oil and gas industry or factory farming
Have you ever seen a sheep be sheared? It's violent and bloody. If your barber scraped the hell out of your scalp while shaving your head, you'd fire them.
Also, sheep too old to produce good wool don't get a peaceful retirement. They get slaughtered and turned into dog or chicken food. The same thing happens when there's a disease epidemic - common because of the crowded and filthy conditions in factory farming - or crop failures or drought. As soon as it's not profitable to keep the sheep alive we kill them.
But neither of those points are actually the point of the conversation at all. The point is it's immoral to use an animal as an object to benefit humans. If you wouldn't keep humans in pens and shave them to make clothing, you shouldn't do the same thing to sheep. Simple as.
Have you ever seen a sheep be sheared? It's violent and bloody.
What the fuck are you talking about. They use clippers with a guard on them. They don't shave all the way to the skin. Have you ever seen a sheep he sheared? It involves no blood, only someone holding the animal still. It takes like 30 minutes once every six months.
The point is it's immoral to use an animal as an object to benefit humans.
Yeah hard disagree from me bro. Nature disagrees too. Let the wolves have the sheep instead I guess lol
