Actually, this is badly derived.
The criticism of factory-farm agriculture involving livestock is valid; the equation of this and “animal agriculture” is false and misled.
There is no reason that there should be few animals on planet Earth. Animals have grazed and browsed and even burped and farted for millennia of millennia. It matters little which.
But humans have inserted ourselves in the cycle and partially stopped it: we have prevented the manure from going back to the soil, cut into the soil and let it blow off in the wind and let the Midwest dump fertile topsoil into the Sargasso Sea.
No, the most damaging agriculture are the factory farms, but this is also because they use many more acres of farmland to raise grain for animals that eat grass. Factory farms without animals also kill animals by destroying habitat, by fungicides, pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, plowing, and removing fertility by “cleaning” badly.
No, a first-approach description of what has to happen is simple, though the systems are ultimately complex.
- Raise food without poisons so surplus returns to the soil.
- Surplus cellulose feeds herbivores
- Herbivores feed carnivores and omnivores
- The surplus of all animals returns to the soil to feed plants
This is “dust unto dust.” It is “carbon sequestration,” and houses tons of carbon per acre. But you have to do it. You have to quit dumping the plastics in the ocean. You have to plant the trees and guide the water.