A significant number of the sheep in our region are moved through and grazed upon the vegetation of California’s rangeland, pasture, perennial and annual cropland systems. Currently alpaca, llama and mohair producers also utilize pasture (managed, grazed domestic forage) and to some degree rangeland (grazed resident vegetation) for their agricultural practices. All of these grass-fed, fiber-producing animals have the potential to graze on managed landscapes where Carbon Farming practices are being implemented, thus creating products that are Climate Beneficial™, by virtue of their integral place in the Carbon Farming system.
Peter VanDerWal wrote:...
Not that I'm against sheep, just pointing out that they are counter productive towards this specific goal.
r ranson wrote:...
2. Everything I've seen so far suggests that one t-shirt produced in the modern industrial way, produces far more negative environmental impact than the most gaseous of sheep do in their lifetime. A t-shirt is usually part cotton - massive amounts of water, pesticides, herbicides, and labour issues, then transported several countries during the construction phase, and massive amounts of water pollution. The other part of the t-shirt is a synthetic substance, again transported to many countries, massive water pollution, dye pollution, labour issues.... ad nausium.
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
On the other hand, Merino wool has a lot useful properties that cotton/flax can't match.
Methane is a potent, if short-lived greenhouse gas. It is given a global warming potential rating of 25 times that of carbon dioxide, though it has a lifetime of 9 to 12 years in the atmosphere, compared with carbon dioxide which can last more than 100.
When modern day ruminants, cattle and sheep, are removed other ruminants usually move in. When the Maasai tribes and their cattle herds were removed from the Serengeti, to create a national park the native ruminants—buffalo, wildebeest, gazelles and giraffe—replaced them. They bred up and created their own methane.