This is related to why eliminating beef agriculture in large parts of North America would have limited impact on ungulate methane emissions. Without replacing them with vast herds of bison, which similarly emit methane, the ecosystems die.
This is related to why eliminating beef agriculture in large parts of North America would have limited impact on ungulate methane emissions. Without replacing them with vast herds of bison, which similarly emit methane, the ecosystems die.
No, this is demonstrably not true. Cattle graze differently than bison do. (See, e.g., https://westernwatersheds.org/gw-cattle-v-bison/)
Cattle graze in dense herds. Bison herds are more spread out.
Cattle move less frequently while grazing, and consume a significantly greater portion of the available foodmass in an area before moving on. Cattle also generally avoid native grasslands when possible; bison prefer native grasses.
Cattle consume significantly more water than bison.
Cattle hoves are duller than bison hooves, and impact the ground without cutting it up; bison hooves are sharp and essentially actual like natural tills.
Cattle can only graze during limited portions of the year and in limited terrains; bison can graze year-round and on a much wider variety of terrains.
Bison are able to generate more useful...plop...than cattle are due to the significant differences in their digestion. This plop is more suited for fertilizing natural grasses (for example, the "green wave" https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1913783116).
I think that lost of information is available on most subjects.
The differences in attainment (assuming equal access) is generally one of effort and interest.
Be curious about the world, attempt to answer your questions. You are likely to discover something along the way!
But generally speaking, there are a number of environmental restoration groups across the country that conduct research and publish their findings. Some are more prolific than others. Bison are the most heavily studied in this regard, but there is similar research related to seals, salmon, condor, and other keystone species.
If you're interested in researching this...do as much research as you can in the next few days as it's very likely that the current administration will try to censor it by the end of the month.
https://westernwatersheds.org/the-history-of-public-lands-gr...
The cycles of graze, move, graze, move, with seasons where plantlife had time to recuperate, are long gone. It's graze, graze, graze, until there's nothing left and the herd die out or are moved elsewhere to do the same.
The problem with this issue is it's complex in a bell curve nature. With humans in the mix, we take it to an extreme - it's either cattle land or its not, and there's no room for a compromise because cattle can't graze on cropland, or through urban/industrial areas, so they get put on lots too small for them and cause immeasurable ecological damage in the process.
Topsoil is what we call the upper "living" aerobic portion of soil. It is the portion of soil that participates in nutrient cycling. Roots into subsoil turn it into top soil over time. Tilling kills topsoil. So, its not that all the dirt flew away. Some did, but mostly it just died and turned back into subsoil.
Also reminds me of Zai holes or crescent-dikes for rainwater harvesting and planting. Apparently it's a technique being used to limit and reforest the encroachment of the Sahara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Za%C3%AF
This rotation allows the soil to regain its fertility without the grasslands becoming completely denuded.
That is to say: Rotational grazing is very beneficial. Grazing only becomes problematic when rotation is severely restricted.