Front. Sustain. Food Syst. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2571-581X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00141 Sustainable Food Systems Review Do Differences in Livestock Management Practices Influence Environmental Impacts? Kleppel Gary S. * Biology Department, State University of New York, Albany, NY, United States

Edited by: Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Stanford University, United States

Reviewed by: Laura M. Cardenas, Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom; Rick Teague, Texas A&M AgriLife Research & Extension Center at Stephenville, United States

*Correspondence: Gary S. Kleppel gkleppel@albany.edu

This article was submitted to Agroecology and Ecosystem Services, a section of the journal Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems

16 09 2020 2020 4 141 26 03 2020 05 08 2020 Copyright © 2020 Kleppel. 2020 Kleppel

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Herbivore-carnivore interactions are fundamental to grassland ecosystem functionality and to the human cultures that have long depended on these ecosystems for their nutrition. However, a large literature has developed during the past century indicating that animal agriculture is responsible for numerous negative environmental impacts. In this paper, I review literature on some of the environmental impacts of two different livestock management approaches, industrial-conventional (IC) management and regenerative-multi-paddock (RM) management. I consider the null hypothesis that the environmental impacts of ruminant livestock production are independent of the approach used to manage animals and grazing lands. It evident in the literature that managed grazing ecosystems are complex, and for certain system attributes, such as forage quality and plant community structure, the better management system is difficult to discern. In other areas definitive differences in impacts appear clearly management dependent. For instance, the soils of RM grasslands exhibit higher microbial biomass and diversity, and higher fungal: bacterial ratios than IC soils. Several impacts associated with livestock production appear to have less to do with grazing, per se, and more to do with support factors, such as feed production and manure management. The compilation of data from numerous sources suggests that RM management may reduce blue withdrawals and GHG emissions by >50%, relative to IC management. Accumulating data also suggest that a significant portion of anthropogenic CO2-eq emissions can be removed from the atmosphere and stored in the soil by applying RM management practices. Finally, it is suggested that while research design may affect the outcomes of some studies, the quality and quantity of the science may not resolve many discrepancies in the data. It is suggested that the viability and sustainability of animal agriculture may depend upon broadening the goals of practitioners to include both food production and the restoration and protection of agricultural ecosystem services.

meat production regenerative agriculture multi-paddock livestock management industrial agriculture conventional livestock management livestock impacts

香京julia种子在线播放

    1. <form id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></form>
      <address id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv><nobr id=HxFbUHhlv></nobr></nobr></address>

      Introduction

      Research conducted over nearly a century identifies clear connections between animal agriculture and environmental disruption. Livestock grazing has long been associated with biodiversity loss in plant and wildlife communities, the dispersal of invasive species, degradation of soil structure, and desertification (Daubenmire, 1940; Savory, 1983; Allen et al., 1991; Savory and Butterworth, 1999; Drewry, 2006; Harrison and Bardgett, 2010; Wirsenius et al., 2010; Alkemade et al., 2013). Cattle grazing and livestock feed production are responsible for >65% of the deforestation that has taken place in Brazil and other tropical and subtropical regions (Vale et al., 2019). Animal agriculture is an important source of ammonia, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) [Parris, 2011; USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2017; Food Agriculture Organization, 2019] and blue water withdrawals [USGS (U.S. Geological Service), 2005; Rotz et al., 2019]. Runoff from livestock and feed production operations are significant non-point aquatic contamination sources [Agouridis et al., 2005; USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2017].

      These obviously negative impacts contrast markedly with the natural historical record documenting the roles of herd forming ungulates in maintaining the functionality of grass- and rangeland ecosystems and the human cultures that have depended on these systems for hundreds of millennia (Oksanen et al., 1981; Frank et al., 1998; Baltica and Boskovica, 2015). Large ungulates are keystone species in wild grassland ecosystems globally, supporting higher trophic transfer efficiencies than herbivores in most other kinds of terrestrial ecosystems (Stuart-Hill and Mentis, 1982; Frank et al., 1998). An estimated 168 million ruminants, including 50–60 million bison roamed the grasslands of pre-Colombian North America, supporting enormous soil fertility, and biodiversity in the plant communities they grazed (Frank et al., 1998; Skarpe and Hester, 2010). Greenhouse gas production, particularly methane production, by these ungulates was equivalent to that produced by modern livestock [Smith et al., 2016; USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2020]. Massive ungulate herds also grazed and in some cases continue to graze the grasslands of Eurasia and Africa (Janis, 2010) and although the carbon and nitrogenous gas produced by these mammals once raised GHG levels in the atmosphere, they are not known to have significantly altered global climate (Smith et al., 2016). These wild, herd-forming ungulates did, however, represent critical nutritional and cultural resources to pre-agricultural human societies.

      One must ask why large ruminants that have so profoundly contributed to the fertility and well-being of terrestrial ecosystems and the humans who inhabited them, have today become anathema to human and environmental health. Certainly, domestication has not changed the anatomies or physiologies of herbivores in meaningful ways. It is unlikely, then, that the negative impacts of animal agriculture are due to the species being produced. It seems more likely that livestock management practices determine impacts. It should, therefore, be possible to mitigate at least some impacts of animal agriculture by modifying production practices.

      In this paper I address the null hypothesis that the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, particularly those associated with the production of ruminant species, are independent of management. I used data from the technical literature and popular media in this investigation. The focus of the paper is on livestock management practices in industrialized countries, including but not limited to the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the European Union, as well as certain developing countries, such as Brazil. Comparisons were made between two very different management models. One of these is generally associated with the industrial model of agriculture and based on pasture management practices that will be referred to as “conventional grazing.” The other is consistent with the regenerative model of agriculture and a set of livestock management practices collectively referred to as “multi-paddock grazing” (MP). Throughout this paper I will use the abbreviation IC to refer to the industrial-conventional management collective and RM to refer to the regenerative-multi-paddock management collective. In many cases I will refer to a system by its collective management approach, i.e., IC or RM. However, there are times, particularly in the experimental literature, when the collective management approach is not specified but the grazing practice (e.g., conventional or MP) is. Furthermore, there are times when data from several grazing operations or experimental systems are considered together without specification of an overall or collective strategy. In these cases, I will confine my description to the grazing practice (conventional or MP) rather than collective approach (IC or RM). It is recognized that animal agriculture exists along a continuum of practices with many operations combining elements of both industrial and regenerative practice.

      To be clear, a variety of “traditional” practices (as distinguished from conventional practices) are used to manage livestock on pastures and rangelands in both the developed and developing world. These vary along a continuum from relatively unmanaged seasonal grazing (e.g., traditional Scottish and Icelandic sheep farming) to carefully managed seasonal livestock migrations (e.g., African Maasai cattle herders; French mountain shepherds, see Meuret and Provenza, 2014). In this paper, I will not dwell on the many, often ancient, practices used by traditional herding cultures, particularly in the developing world. Many of these are under stress from anthropogenic (e.g., Mongolian herders) and environmental forces (e.g., Saami reindeer herders of Scandinavia; Changpa nomads of the Kashmiri high-ice deserts). They should become the focus of further research, as they contribute to both fertility and stress in agricultural landscapes. The focus of this paper, however, is on comparing conventional grazing within the context of the industrial agricultural model, and multi-paddock grazing as incorporated into the regenerative agricultural model.

      Industrial Agriculture and Conventional Livestock Production

      Modern industrial agriculture originated in Europe and the United States during the mid-eighteenth century in parallel with the Industrial Revolution. All efforts in agriculture were focused on boosting production and efficiency to meet the growing demand for food created by the massive demographic shift from the countryside to emerging urban manufacturing centers (Pollard, 1981; Wiesner et al., 2015). After the first and second World Wars mechanization and the development of synthetic fertilizers approximately doubled crop production. Synthetic pesticides (e.g., DDT) permitted the creation of large-scale crop monocultures year after year (Kleppel, 2014; Bellis, 2018). During the second half of the twentieth century the Green Revolution brought selectively bred plant varieties, especially cereal grains, to the developing world (Borlaug, 1970, 2002), but possibly at an unsustainable cost in terms of fossil fuels use, synthetic fertilizer applications, and blue water withdrawals (Brown, 1970; Cribb, 2010; Shiva, 2016). Today, as genomics, artificial intelligence and other information technologies surge, a new revolution in industrial agriculture is underway. Its success will be measured by the role it plays in feeding an exploding human population in the face of climate change and resource decline.

      Optimization of production is the focus of modern industrial animal agriculture. This is often accomplished by finishing livestock in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). While increasingly limited in Europe (Imhoff, 2010), CAFOs are widely used in the US. Typically, beef cattle are moved from grazing lands to the CAFO at ~6-months of age and are ready for slaughter 3–5 months later. Dairy cattle and swine may be confined during much or all of their lives. The CAFO maintains livestock at high densities. Energy rich rations consisting of silage and/or pelletized grains, are typical feeds. Growth stimulants, including hormones, as well as certain antibiotics delivered at sub-medicinal levels that stimulate citric acid cycle activity, are widely used in the US (less so, outside of the US) to increase the rate of weight gain (Pollan, 2006; Kleppel, 2014). The US Food and Drug Administration [FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), 2013; FDA (U.S. Food Drug Administration), 2019] has tightened control over (but not banned) the use of antibiotics in animal feeds due to their role in the production of antibiotic resistant, pathogenic bacteria [Feingold et al., 2012; FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), 2013; FDA (U.S. Food Drug Administration), 2019]. Although beyond the scope of this paper, CAFO practices, which reduce finishing times by 30–50% relative to finishing on pasture, have been criticized as inhumane and unsafe (Schlosser, 2001; Pollan, 2006; Ebner, 2017). Nonetheless, the industrial model of livestock production is the globally dominant meat production system, accounting for more than 80% of the meat produced in the United States (Schlosser, 2001; Ikerd, 2008).

      Conventional livestock management which, in this paper, refers to the on-farm portion of livestock production, prior to movement to the CAFO, dovetails with the industrial model in its focus on specialization and monoculture, in its extensive use of chemical and other inputs and its reliance on grain-based or grain supplemented nutrition for ruminants, even when animals are on pasture. Stock densities on pasture tend to be relatively low and stock rotation (i.e., movement to fresh pasture) tends to be relatively infrequent (weeks to seasons) if it occurs at all. Overgrazing is common in conventional grazing systems and may be compensated for by supplementing with hay, silage and/or pelletized grain.

      Regenerative Agriculture and Multi-Paddock Grazing

      Regenerative agriculture focuses at least as strongly on the restoration and management of soil health and agro-ecosystem functionality as on production (Doran et al., 2002). Doran (2002) defines soil health as “… the capacity of a living soil to function within natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health.”

      Regenerative agriculture has its roots in the early to mid-twentieth century, beginning with the work of Howard (1940, 1947), Balfour (1943) and the emergent organic and (what became) the holistic management and sustainable agriculture movements of the 1960s and beyond. The regenerative approach is a response to evidence that soil health, functionality and quality have been lost or have deteriorated to the extent that much of the earth's arable soils are incapable of producing nutrient dense food and have lost the capacity to support essential ecosystem services (Pimentel et al., 1987; Crosson et al., 1995; Lal, 2001, 2019; Pimentel and Burgess, 2013; Montgomery, 2017). As such, regenerative operations frequently employ organic or “nature-based” practices (Brown, 2018) with the co-equal goals of producing nutrient dense food while restoring and managing environmental quality (Bouma, 2002; Jackson, 2002).

      Pasture-based livestock production is key to regenerative farming and ranching. Pasture-based producers feed ruminant livestock primarily on forages, hay, and/or haylage. Omnivorous, non-ruminant livestock, such as swine and poultry, usually receive some grain-based feed supplements. Stock densities of ruminants in this system are usually 2–4 times higher than in conventional grazing systems and rotation to fresh pasture generally occurs every 0.5–3 days (Flack, 2016). A rotational cycle through a subdivided pasture system, or multi-paddock system, should require at least 30 days, but rotational cycles of 60 to >100 days are not uncommon (Gerrish, 2004). Rotational cycles can be adjusted to accomplish ancillary goals, such as invasive plant management, or to respond to changing vegetation, weather patterns (e.g., drought) or other variables (see Kleppel et al., 2011; Girard Cartier and Kleppel, 2015; Bishopp, 2020). Several workers have described these methods in detail, using such terms as holistic planned grazing, management-intensive grazing and intensive rotational grazing (Savory, 1983; Savory and Butterworth, 1999, 2016; Gerrish, 2004; Flack, 2016; Salatin, 2019). Collectively, they are referred to as multi-paddock (MP), or adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) livestock management (Teague et al., 2011; Rowntree et al., 2019). Multi-paddock management attempts to mimic the evolved herding behaviors of wild, ungulates (Voisin, 1959; Acocks, 1966a,b). Protagonists of multi-paddock management claim that this approach enhances soil fertility and health, reduces overgrazing, and reduces disease and morbidity within the herd. In this paper, I will examine some of these claims.

      Wild Ungulates and the Multi-Paddock Approach to Grazing

      About 40% the Earth's land area is suitable for agriculture and about one-third of that can support large scale crop production (Revelle, 1976). The remainder will only support animal agriculture. Whether produced conventionally or by RM practices, most domesticated ruminants forage on pasture or rangeland during at least a portion of their lives. The way land is used, and the amount of land used for grazing differ with practice, as do the responses of the soil, vegetation and water supplies to the stocking rates and activities of the animals.

      Observations of wild, herd forming ungulates inform RM practice. Studies in the African Serengeti and Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA have demonstrated that grazers, particularly large herd-forming ungulates, migrate across landscapes in response to stimuli associated with the seasonal growing cycle of the plant community (McNaughton, 1985; Frank et al., 1998). “Green waves” of primary production during the rainy season in the Serengeti and the vernal thaw in Yellowstone, trigger these migrations. Herd trajectories are refined by gradients in macro-nutrient and mineral concentrations in the forage (McNaughton, 1990). Plant communities in the Serengeti are, not surprisingly, dominated by grazing-tolerant species (McNaughton, 1984; Archibald, 2008), which tend to grow close to the ground and to be shorter in height than the same species in un-grazed grasslands. Nonetheless, compensatory biomass production in grazed plant communities tends to be higher than in grasslands from which large grazers have been excluded (McNaughton, 1984, 1986). Furthermore, studies in both wild and agricultural landscapes suggest that plant community species richness tends to be higher in ecosystems grazed by herd-forming ungulates (unencumbered by human artifacts) than in un-grazed systems, exclosures, or un-grazed sections within a particular landscape (Frank, 2005; Marion et al., 2010; Girard Cartier, 2017).

      The capacity of soil-plant-herbivore interactions to translate from wild to agricultural ecosystems predicts the nature and extent of impacts that livestock may have on soil, forage, and aquatic resources. These, I suggest, will be determined by the way the livestock is managed within the grazing ecosystem.

      Environmental Impacts of Animal Agriculture

      This paper compares IC and RM practice in four categories of environmental impacts associated with livestock agriculture. These are: (i) impacts to plant communities and soil health; (ii) impacts to water and soil-water interactions; (iii) impacts from agricultural ammonia (NH3) emissions; and (iv) impacts associated with climate change.

      Impacts to Plant Communities and Soil Health

      That livestock activities, including grazing, egestion and excretion, and trampling affect the structure and functioning of grassland ecosystems has led some workers to suggest that grazing and animal agriculture are ecologically destructive (Belsky, 1987; Mligo, 2015). Logic, however, causes one to question that notion, and numerous studies, both empirical and model-based, have demonstrated that a multiplicity of geophysical, biological, behavioral, and natural historical factors, functioning over seasonal to evolutionary timescales influence the ways that wild and domesticated grazers affect grassland ecosystems (McNaughton, 1985; Milchunas et al., 1988; Milchunas and Lauenroth, 1993; Cingolani et al., 2005; Patra et al., 2005; Villalba and Provenza, 2009; Hilario et al., 2017). Plant community biomass and composition, as well as plant physiology are influenced by the timing and intensity of grazing (Hayes and Holl, 2003; Frank, 2005). For example, Daubenmire (1940), studying the effects of domesticated livestock grazing on plant communities in the bunchgrass prairie of Washington state, USA, reported that heavy grazing resulted in severe defoliation and changes in dominance patterns and other structural variables in the prairie grass community. Furthermore, he noted that heavy grazing sometimes created areas of bare ground and altered patch structure. The effects of cattle grazing on the bunchgrass prairie community varied with the temporal onset of grazing and its persistence.

      Interestingly, the factors that determine grazing intensity are often vaguely described in the literature and vary from one study to the next. Research published more than a half century ago, however, provides guidance on what determines grazing intensity. Voisin (1959) noticed that wild ungulates move continuously across a landscape. More recently, Owen-Smith et al. (2010) suggested that herd movements tend to be continuous over a hierarchy of spatial scales. Conventionally managed livestock, however, may remain in a single pasture for an entire grazing season over multiple years. Acocks (1966a; 1966b, cf. Hoffman, 2003) observed that wild, herd forming ungulates aggregate at relatively high densities. For example, Venter et al. (2017) reported wildebeest herds of >20 tons ha−1 (>100 head ha−1) in a 24 km2 region of the Serengeti. Conversely, domesticated livestock are often stocked at much lower densities [e.g., 1.2–2.5 tons ha−1; UMass (Sustainable UMass), 2020] on pasture and rangeland, and moved infrequently, if at all. At low stocking rates livestock graze selectively, ultimately overgrazing patches and creating bare ground that becomes susceptible to drying, capping and erosion (Savory and Butterworth, 1999). Soil structural integrity deteriorates rapidly under these conditions, and the capacity of the soil to retain water and carbon is lost (Savory and Butterworth, 1999, 2016; Gerrish, 2004; Lal, 2004, 2015). Even in pastures composed of monocultures or only a few plant species, continuous or near-continuous grazing will produce these same outcomes (Massy, 2018).

      Following on the observations of Acocks and Voisin, workers hypothesized that by mimicking the aggregation and movement patterns of wild ungulates, livestock could be managed without damaging grassland ecosystems (Goodloe, 1969; Savory, 1978, 1983; Savory and Parsons, 1980; Savory and Butterworth, 1999, 2016; Teague et al., 2009). Among the principal findings of researchers and practitioners of MP management are that frequent rotation and relatively long periods of pasture rest are key to pastoral ecosystem functionality and livestock health (Gerrish, 2004; Flack, 2016; Savory and Butterworth, 2016). In a typical multi-paddock operation, the vegetation in a single paddock experiences intense grazing pressure for a short period of time. This is followed by a period of pasture rest that varies with vegetation growth rates, such that over the course of the season the grassland is only lightly impacted. Some pastoralists have suggested that the rest period afforded to a grassland, more than the stocking rate (which can vary widely, e.g., from 5 to 125 tons ha−1), may be critical to determining the impacts of grazers in a landscape (Salatin, 2019). Badgery (2017) compared the effects of high rotation frequencies and long periods of pasture rest (57 d, 114 d, or flexible rest period) on forage biomass and beef cattle production with conventional (continuous) grazing. While the effects varied with plant species composition, overall plant biomass and ground cover were significantly higher in the multi-paddock than the conventionally grazed system. Production was statistically similar in both experimental grazing systems. Teague et al. (2013) have been critical of such studies, pointing to the difficulties of designing experiments in which one attempts to hold a suite of secondary variables constant while the single variable of interest (e.g., rest period) is manipulated.

      Several studies suggest that livestock managed according to the multi-paddock model can increase plant species richness and the functionality of grassland ecosystems (Booysen and De, 1969; Howell, 2008; Brown, 2018). Teague et al. (2011) observed higher production of seral grasses, and lower incidences of bare ground in pastures in north central Texas that used AMP practices relative to conventionally grazed pastures. Similarly, Girard Cartier and Kleppel (2017), Teague and Barnes (2017), and Kleppel (2019) observed higher plant biodiversity, forage biomass or both in pastures in upstate New York and north central Texas managed by MP and RM practices relative to pastures managed conventionally. Cassidy and Kleppel (2017) reported that Savannah sparrow (Passerunculus sandwichensis) and Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) abundances were 2–3 times higher in pastures managed by MP and RM practices than in conventionally managed pastures.

      Not all comparisons of MP and conventional grazing support these observations. In fact, there is a lack of consensus on the benefits of MP and RM management to plant community structure or function relative to IC and conventional grazing practice (Gosnell et al., 2020 and references therein). Teague et al. (2013) suggested possible explanations for contradictory results, but disagreements remain about the efficacy of multi-paddock techniques relative to conventionally managed grazing (e.g., Barnes and Denny, 1991; McCollum et al., 1999; Briske et al., 2008; Hawkins et al., 2017; and others). These discrepancies may be due, in part, to differences in the ways managers respond to environmental variability (Voisin, 1959).

      The effects of grazers on soil structure and composition vary with the timing of deployment, rotation frequency, and species, breeds, and stocking rates. For example, grazing during dry or wet periods can have significant effects on soil structure, which will vary depending upon soil type, slope and landscape roughness, and the nature of vegetative cover. Verchot et al. (2002) observed that nitrogen (N) mineralization and immobilization proceeded at rates nearly an order of magnitude higher in the wet bottomlands of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) than in dry uplands areas, independent of whether the landscape was grazed or not grazed by wild ungulates. Conversely, Frank et al. (2000) reported significant differences in soil N-dynamics in grazed and un-grazed portions of the northern winter range of YNP. In livestock grazing systems, relationships among variables may be management-dependent. Girard Cartier (2017), working with sheep, reported differences in soil N-dynamics in bottomland and upland sites in upstate New York, USA that were associated with both landscape attributes and management practices (MP vs. continuous grazing).

      The intimate coupling that exists between the soil microbial community, the plant community, and the activities of ruminants is critical to the functioning of both wild grassland and pastoral ecosystems (Bardgett et al., 1997, 2001; Oates et al., 2018). Grazing has a strong influence on this functionality and on the way livestock management can influence the structure and stability of both forage and soil microbial communities. For example, heavy grazing often results in severe defoliation and the production of highly labile root exudates that favor the growth of bacteria in the rhizosphere. Conversely, light grazing results in production of less labile root exudates that support the growth of fungal species (Bardgett and Leemans, 1995; Bardgett et al., 1998). One would expect, therefore, that fungal:bacterial (F:B) ratios would be higher in MP soils than conventionally managed soils, if indeed, MP management represents a form of “light” grazing. This is important because, as a rule, higher F:B ratios reflect greater soil organic matter (SOM) stability and greater water holding capacity. Furthermore, diversity is key to the stability of soil microbial communities and therefore to the interdependent functioning of the soil-forage-grazer system. Few studies, however, have compared soil microbial community structures and compositions in differently managed grasslands. Teague et al. (2011) in north central Texas, and Kleppel (2019) in upstate New York independently observed higher F:B ratios and greater microbial diversity in the soils of pastures managed by MP practices than by conventional practices. Multi-variate analyses (Kleppel, 2019) revealed that different variables may drive changes in microbial biomass in soils of differently managed pastures, even when the pastures are near each other. These findings support the hypothesis that grazing management practices can influence the structure and functioning of the soil microbiome and thereby the structure of the soil itself.

      Impacts to Water and Soil-Water Interactions Water Pollution and Soil Degradation

      It is not news that agriculture contributes significantly to water pollution. Runoff linked to the management of livestock and manure, as well as feed production are key contributors to that signal (Parris, 2011). The impacts of animal agriculture vary with regional differences in soil type, topography, weather, climate, and vegetation. The effects of RM and IC practices on water quality differ over a variety of scales. On Texas ranches, switching from multi-paddock to heavy continuous grazing practices resulted in increased runoff and losses of sediment, inorganic nitrogen, and phosphorus on the order of 140–160% (Park et al., 2017). Switching from continuous to MP grazing practices resulted in comparable decreases in erosion and nutrient leaching.

      While ultimately, soil type and water delivery rate are the overarching determinants of infiltration rate, livestock, and pasture management practices can alter this process (Laycock and Conrad, 1967; Savory and Butterworth, 1999; Franzluebbers et al., 2012). However, comparisons between the effects of livestock management practices on water infiltration and soil compaction (i.e., bulk density) are inconsistent. Abdel-Magid et al. (1987) observed no effect of rotational frequency or stock density on bulk density, but infiltration declined at higher stock densities in sandy loam soils of the high-plains grasslands near Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. Thurow et al. (1986) reported that in semi-arid Texas grasslands, infiltration rates, and bulk densities were less severely impacted by multi-paddock grazing than by continuous grazing, though Warren et al. (1986a) noted that both stock density and vegetation type may affect soil compaction and infiltration. Warren et al. (1986b) also reported that water infiltration into soils devoid of vegetation decreased significantly under intensive rotations with impacts increasing as a function of simulated rainfall. Teague et al. (2020) expressed concern about the artificiality of the design of these experiments. Kleppel (2019) studying grasslands grazed by large and small ruminants, as well as un-grazed hayfields, observed no effect of management practice (MP v. conventional v. hayfields) on soil moisture or infiltration rates, but found significantly less compaction (lower bulk densities) of MP soils than of conventionally grazed or hayfield soils in the silty-clay loams (principally Angola, Burdette, and Tuller-Green) and hilly landscapes of upstate New York.

      Blue Water Withdrawals

      Agriculture is water intensive. Between 30 and 40% of blue water withdrawals in the United States and ~60–70% of blue water withdrawals worldwide are associated with agricultural activities (USGS (U.S. Geological Service), 2005; Schlosser et al., 2014). In the US, only about 7.5% of agricultural water use is directed toward livestock production and only 3% is consumed as drinking water by cattle (Rotz et al., 2019). Approximately 90% of all blue water withdrawals for agriculture are used for irrigation (91.7 TL) [USDA/ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Economic Research Service), 2019a]. About 60% of that is for production of livestock feed crops: corn (25%), forage (18%) and soybeans (14%) [USDA/ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Economic Research Service), 2019b].

      Rotz et al. (2019) conducted an extensive and elegant analysis of the environmental footprint of beef production in the United States. The authors used an Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM; Rotz et al., 2016) to estimate energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reactive N releases and blue water withdrawals for production of both traditional beef breeds and culled dairy cattle. They reported a farm-to-gate blue water consumption of 23.2 TL for the US herd, or 2,095 L/kg of carcass weight (CW). Only 0.7 TL nationally, or 62.9 L/kg CW of total blue water withdrawal accrues from drinking and 6–11% of the water consumed by a steer is returned to the hydrological cycle by excretion (as urine and dung) and respiration (Nader et al., 1998). The fate of excreted water depends on practice. In pasture-based practice, water in urine and dung is returned to the soil where it may serve as a vehicle facilitating microbial contact for nutrient regeneration. In a CAFO, urine and dung are treated as contaminants and may be composted in sumps or other waste management systems.

      Rotz et al. (2019) did not distinguish between IC and RM blue water withdrawals. However, using their Table 1 (p. 3), which provides blue water use factors for feed production, it was possible to separate factors associated with IC and RM operations (Table 1 in this paper). I used Rotz et al.'s blue water withdrawal estimates for IC practice, but because minimum and maximum values were provided for some feed production use factors, I preserved the range of estimates of water withdrawals associated with feed production in RM operations. The relative difference between blue water use for feed production by the two practices is substantial. IC practices require 53.1–90.1% more water than RM practices due to the lower dependence of RM practice on grain-based feeds. For a pasture-based RM operation between 251.2 and 955.1 liters of water will be used to produce the forage and hay-based products needed to generate one kg of red meat, reducing the blue water requirement from 2,095.0 L kg−1 CW to between 264.1 and 1,018.0 L kg−1 CW.

      Farm-to-gate blue water requirements for traditional beef cattle breeds produced by industrial-conventional (IC) and regenerative-multi-paddock (RM) management.

      Industrial-conventionala Regenerative-multi-paddockb
      Liters kg−1 CW Liters kg−1 CW
      Drinking 62.9 Drinking 62.9
      Feed production 2032.1 Feed production – min 201.2
      Total requirement 2095.1 Feed production – max 955.1
      Total requirement – min 264.1
      Total requirement – max 1018.0

      Data from Rotz et al. (2019).

      To estimate minimum (min) and maximum (max) feed production requirements, i.e., use factors relating to production of grain feeds, as well as synthetic chemical inputs were removed from the use factor list (Rotz et al., 2019, their table, p. 3) to create a list of RM use factors. Then, the minimum water requirement for RM feed production = (Σ minimum values for RM use factors/Σ minimum values for all use factors) × Feed production water requirement (2032.1 L kg−1CW). The maximum water requirement for RM feed production was estimated by replacing minimum use factors by maximum use factors.

      Impacts From Agricultural Ammonia (NH<sub>3</sub>) Emissions

      Ammonia emissions contribute to eutrophication and acidification in aquatic ecosystems, vegetation damage and alteration of plant community composition in terrestrial ecosystems, and human morbidity (Kelly et al., 2005). Agriculture is a significant ammonia source. For instance, ~80–94% of all NH3 emissions in Europe and the United States are thought to be contributed by agricultural activities (Webb et al., 2005; Herbert et al., 2020). Agricultural emissions in the United Kingdom were estimated to be 228 kt-N at the turn of the twenty-first century (Pain et al., 1998; Sutton et al., 2000). Animal agricultural emissions [1.67 mtons y−1 in the US (USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2016)] are generated by animal housing and confinement practices, manure storage and slurry spreading, inorganic fertilizer use, and grazing. Together, housing and confinement practices, manure spreading, and fertilizer use account for about 75% of all emissions. The ammonia contribution associated with grazing is relatively minor, about 12% (Misselbrook, 2015).

      I am not aware of studies comparing the magnitudes of ammonia emissions and impacts on farms employing RM practices with those produced by IC operations. It seems reasonable, however, to hypothesize that IC agriculture creates a substantially larger ammonia footprint than RM agriculture due to intensive confinement and other practices. Further research in this area seems warranted.

      Impacts Associated With Climate Change

      Agriculture is a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Three factors determine the net agricultural contribution: (i) CO2-eq emitted; (ii) CO2-eq removed and (iii) CO2-eq stored in the soil.

      CO<sub>2</sub>-eq Emitted

      Farming, forestry, and land use change associated with agriculture contribute 24–31% of the 50.9 GT of annual global GHG emissions (IPCC, 2014). Nearly half of this is the result of rainforest destruction, much of it for livestock grazing and feed-grain production (IPCC, 2018). In aggregate, livestock production represents 14.5% (7.1 GT) of total GHG emissions globally (Olivier and Peters, 2018; Food Agriculture Organization, 2020). Feed production (including the soils used to grow feed crops), i.e., the cultivation of grains used for livestock feeds, usually in large monocultures produced with the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, is the largest GHG contributor within animal agriculture. Feed production accounts for ~45% (3.2 GT) of total GHG emissions within the category. This is followed by enteric (principally methane) production (39%), manure management (10%), and transportation and processing (6%).

      In 2017, agriculture contributed ~9.1% of the 6.5 GT of CO2-eq emitted in the United States [USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2016]. Crop production (including that required for livestock feeds) contributed about 58% (3.77 GT) of total US agricultural GHG emissions. Livestock production contributed 42% (2.73 GT). Rotz et al. (2019) provide a breakdown of the source-terms: Enteric GHG production, principally as methane, contributes 56% of livestock-based CO2-eq; pasture, range and crop lands emit 24% of all CO2-eq (mostly as N2O). Manure contributes slightly <20% of CO2-eq-−10% as CH4 and <10% as N20. Fertilizer, electricity, fuel production and other upstream sources contribute 13% and fuel combustion and lime decomposition contribute 4%.

      The values presented above on do not distinguish among livestock management practices and would therefore be assumed to be skewed toward emissions arising from conventional grazing and IC practices that dominate animal agriculture. Given the growing interest in regenerative agriculture, however, it seems reasonable to attempt a comparison of GHG emissions from RM and IC livestock production practices (Table 2). By obviating the GHG emissions associated with feed-grain production, emissions are reduced by ~59%. While enteric methane production by “grass-fed” cattle will be as much as 20% higher than by grain-fed animals, the use of frequent pasture rotations reduces enteric methane production by, on average, 22% (DeRamus et al., 2003). Although manure management practices vary widely in both IC and RM systems, a review of several sources (see notes below Table 2) suggests an average estimated difference of 56.3% (± standard deviation = 45.2) between IC and RM operations. Transportation and energy inputs (oil and fuel) were estimated to be 28% lower for RM animal agriculture than for IC agriculture (Pimentel et al., 2006). Applying these changes, RM management appears capable of reducing annual global GHG emissions from livestock production by ~35.2%, to 4.6 GT CO2-eq y−1. Estimates by Havlik et al. (2014) suggest that changes from conventional to RM practices would lower GHG emissions by about 3.2 GT CO2-eq y−1, consistent with the estimate presented in Table 2. The effect of forage quality on GHG emissions is not captured in Table 2, but improvements in forage quality would be expected to lower enteric methane production further (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Herrero et al., 2013).

      Greenhouse gas emissions (as GT CO2-eq y−1) associated with livestock production by industrial-conventional (IC) and regenerative-multi-paddock (RM) practices.

      GHG from management approach
      IC RM
      CO2-eq (GT y−1) CO2-eq (GT y−1)
      Feed production 3.2 1.3a
      Enteric processing 2.8 2.7b
      Manure management 0.7 0.3c
      Transportation and energy 0.4 0.3d
      Total 7.1 4.6

      Data for (globally dominant) IC practice are from Food Agriculture Organization (2019). Estimates for RM management reflect recalculation of emissions from each category based on studies comparing IC and RM (or organic) practices.

      Reflects removal of grain production and production of synthetic inputs derived from the use factors of Rotz et al. (2019).

      Reflects a 20% increase in GHG emissions assuming a grass-based, rather than a grass-grain based diet, and a 22% decrease in GHG emissions from multi-paddock rotational practices (DeRamus et al., 2003).

      Based on the mean difference (56.3%) in CH4 and N2O emissions associated with manure management and distribution practices on conventional and regenerative (organic) farms. Sources: Chadwick (2011), Sneath et al. (2006), Weiske et al. (2006), and Yamulki (2006).

      Reflects a 28% reduction in GHG emissions by using RM (organic) practices (Pimentel et al., 2006).

      CO<sub>2</sub>-eq Removed

      Grasslands play a critical role in photosynthetic carbon sequestration (Derner and Schuman, 2007; Sacks et al., 2014). Net terrestrial primary productivity (NPP), on the order of 56.4–62.1 GT yr−1, constitutes just over half of the annual global production (Foley, 1994; Field et al., 1998). Tropical rainforests (17.8 GT yr−1) and savannahs + perennial grasslands (19.2 GT yr−1) account for 60–65 percent of the total.

      Stanley et al. (2018) used a life cycle assessment (LCA) to investigate the path of carbon through multi-paddock and conventional beef cattle finishing systems in the American mid-west. Their study revealed significantly higher net GHG production by MP than by conventional practices, due to a >2.5-fold higher enteric GHG emission rate from MP systems than from conventional, grain-based systems. Furthermore, over the life cycle of production, GHG emissions from MP systems were 1.6 times higher than that from conventional management when carbon flux into the soil (i.e., sequestration) was not considered. However, when sequestration was included in the assessment, the MP model significantly out-performed the conventional model, removing more than twice the CO2-eq of conventional beef production. LCA studies by Pelletier et al. (2010) and Lupo et al. (2013) support these observations, suggesting a 24–30% reduction in net GHG production as a function of sequestration from grass-fed beef production. These observations are consistent with an LCA analysis by Wang et al. (2015) for beef production in Texas, and they track well with empirical observations (Teague et al., 2011; Dowhower et al., 2019; Rowntree et al., 2019). The importance of C-sequestration by grasslands is clearly critical to the efficacy of agriculture as a vehicle for GHG removal. As such, MP practices may prove to be a valuable tool for climate change mitigation. As Lal (2019) states,

      The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion mt per year for the next 50 years. The potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw-down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.”

      CO<sub>2</sub>-eq Stored in the Soil

      Grassland and agricultural soils, which cover 53.6% of the earth's land area, store between 52 and 55% of the net terrestrial primary production (Sacks et al., 2014). Turnover of above-ground primary production by aerobic decomposition occurs on timescales of seasons. Herbivorous conversion of plant biomass to dung and urine increases turnover efficiency by 21% (Yoshitake et al., 2014), and facilitates development of soil microbial community structure, which in turn promotes the stabilization and storage of carbon in the soil (Merrill et al., 1994; Bardgett et al., 1998). Patchy deposition of dung, as occurs when livestock densities are low, is obviated by MP practices that manage at higher stock densities and rotation frequencies (Gerrish, 2004; Flack, 2016).

      Integration of livestock and crop production may offer additional opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions (Liu H. et al., 2015; Lal, 2020). Conservation agriculture (CA), described by Lal (2004, 2015, 2019), focuses on increasing carbon storage in the soil during crop production. CA practice involves a commitment to minimal disruption of the soil surface (e.g., low-till or no-till planting), and to ensuring that the soil is always covered with forage, cover crops, or harvest tailings. CA also encourages diversification of vegetation and crop rotation (Farooq and Siddique, 2014). One can speculate that when overlaid on the CA framework, the integration of high frequency rotations of densely stocked ruminants through a rotational cycle that includes harvested crop fields, followed by prolonged rest, would enhance carbon sequestration and storage in croplands while improving fertility. In a case study described in the popular media, Brown (2016, 2018) tracked the deposition of carbon into the soil of his 2000 ha ranch near Bismarck, North Dakota, USA over 23 years. The ranch is managed by integrating RM livestock practices with the principles of conservation agriculture to produce beef cattle, sheep, chickens and a variety of crops. During the course of Brown's analysis, soil organic matter on his ranch increased more than 5-fold, from 1.7 to 11.0% (Figure 1).

      Soil organic matter (SOM; %) at Brown Ranch, near Bismarck, North Dakota, USA, 1993–2013 (source of data: Brown, 2016).

      To summarize, it would appear that MP and RM practices are capable of making significant contributions to climate change mitigation. GHG emissions can be reduced by more than 30%, C-sequestration can be increased by 24–30% (and possibly considerably more), and the time required to convert photosynthetically fixed carbon, i.e., plant biomass, into stable carbon in the soil can be reduced by 21% through grazing, relative to the time required for oxidative turnover. By applying the reduction in GHG emissions via C-sequestration to the estimated emissions from RM practices in Table 2, the net GHG contribution by animal agriculture would be 3.2–3.5 GT CO2-eq y−1 or, conservatively, 45.1–49.3% (i.e., removal of more than half) of current emissions.

      These estimates support the conclusion that agriculture has a critical role to play in the removal of carbon from the atmosphere and in the stabilization and storage of carbon in the soil (Food Agriculture Organization, 2019).

      Sacks et al. (2014) go further, suggesting that well-managed grazing in arid and semi-arid regions, where severe soil degradation and desertification have occurred, can play a pivotal role in carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation:

      This approach…Holistic Planned Grazing, the effectiveness of which has been demonstrated on over millions of hectares on four continents…has the potential to remove excess atmospheric carbon resulting from anthropogenic soil loss over the past 10,000 years and… all industrial-era greenhouse gas emissions. This sequestration potential…could, in theory, return 10 or more gigatons of…atmospheric carbon to the terrestrial sink annually and lower greenhouse gas concentrations to pre-industrial levels in a matter of decades…”

      Clearly, the possibility of a pasture-based approach to planetary carbon management is worthy of further consideration.

      Discussion

      From this brief review, it is evident that significant differences exist between the impacts of IC and RM management with respect to key ecosystem attributes. Though the issue is far from resolved, RM practices appear in many respects to be environmentally benign relative to their IC counterparts. The environmental impacts considered here, and the differences between the management practices that create them may not be the direct result of livestock activities on pasture or rangeland. Often, they are due to differences in the resource intensities (e.g., water or fossil fuels) required to support IC or RM management.

      Papers published between the 1980s and the present have repeatedly questioned the efficacy of various forms of MP management, particularly Savory and Butterworth's (1999, 2016) holistic approach (e.g., Holechek et al., 2000; Briske et al., 2008; Hawkins et al., 2017; and others). Some of the hypotheses and observations promoted by Savory, such as the ability of holistic management to mitigate desertification and climate change (Savory, 2013) have been particularly contentious (Briske et al., 2013). However, Teague et al. (2009, 2013), Wang et al. (2016), and others (e.g., see Teague, 2014) have pointed to the technical and scaling issues that may influence the interpretation of the reductionist approaches typical of traditional experimental comparisons of livestock performance and their environmental consequences under IC management. It has also been suggested that contradictory results may accrue, at least in part, from perceptual differences in the management and operational goals of RM and IC management by both researchers and graziers (Briske et al., 2011). The contentiousness of the debate may contribute to its apparent un-resolvability (Collins, 1981). Briske et al. (2011) suggest moving beyond the debate over whether one management approach is better than the other. They suggest that the focus should be on finding adaptive approaches to livestock production and pasture/rangeland management that respond to the realities of meat production. Sherren and Kent (2019) decry the “linear” (i.e., reductionist) thinking that dominates the issue. The capacity of scientists to deal effectively with complex systems has long been problematic (Capra, 2005). Grazing ecosystems and the outcomes of herbivore-plant-soil interactions, while seemingly simple, are actually functionally complex (Liu J. et al., 2015). Sherren and Kent (2019) and Wynne (1992) point out that frequently researchers exclude or simply miss the realities of livestock management as experienced by graziers. Briske et al. (2011) and Gosnell et al. (2020) suggest incorporating multi-dimensional, socio-ecological perspectives into efforts to understand livestock management dynamics and its outcomes.

      Traditionally, livestock farming, and ranching have had an overriding purpose: production (Toombs and Roberts, 2009). The determination of how to produce the greatest weight gain in the shortest amount of time is of interest to all farmers, ranchers, and students of animal science. Comparisons of livestock weight gain in MP and conventional grazing systems have not been consistent, and more than likely depend upon interactions among stocking rates, forage compositions and any number of highly variable environmental forcing functions as well as the spatial scales at which observations are made (Derner and Hart, 2007; also see Teague et al., 2013 for more detailed treatment of this subject).

      Notwithstanding the importance of production, the slow but persistent emergence of the organic, sustainable, and regenerative farming movements have made environmental stewardship an additional, and even principal goal of animal agriculture. The practitioner's approach toward livestock management broadens when the focus of one's work includes land stewardship. Livestock is no longer the sole product. In fact, livestock becomes a tool to be used in the regenerative process. The convergent goals—production and stewardship—are not necessarily complementary and achieving one goal may impede achievement of the other, at least temporarily. For example, cattle produced by RM management often require 3–6 months longer to finish than grain-supplemented, pastured, or feedlot-finished cattle. However, RM practice may provide positive outcomes by improving soil health and forage quality, and by mitigating a substantial portion of total global GHG emissions.

      It is common knowledge among both farmers and researchers that soil loss and grassland degradation are at near crisis stage (Pimentel, 1997, 2006; Montgomery, 2017; Brown, 2018; J. Kempf, pers. comm. 2017). It is not simply appropriate, but necessary, to the future of agriculture, that some of our attention be focused on soil and ecosystem regeneration. When one manages for soil health, water quality, GHG mitigation, biodiversity, and the restoration of other essential ecosystem services, as well as for livestock production, even the most fundamental management decisions will likely differ from those made when production is the only focus of one's practice. Consistent with the advice of Briske et al. (2011) and Gosnell et al. (2020), we must recognize that complex issues have only partial solutions in science, and that fuller and more satisfying solutions accrue by integrating scientific and practical knowledge (Sherren and Kent, 2019).

      Conclusion

      It is worth remembering that agriculture provides 98% of the food that humans consume, and that meat is critical to the global food supply (White and Hall, 2017). Two thirds of the land on which food is produced can only be used for meat production. If nothing else, this review has supported the concern of many that agriculture is the cause of significant environmental pollution, ecosystem stress, habitat destruction and the loss of ecosystem services. This must change; meat production must and can become a vehicle for creating protein sufficiency, environment integrity and the restoration of ecosystem services, globally. It is the very definition of a non-sequitur that: while food is a critical part of our life support system, to produce food we must destroy our life support system.

      The results of the present analysis suggest that producing livestock need not destroy our life support system. RM practices, with their focus on the restoration and enhancement of ecosystems and the critical services they provide, appear to have the potential to make meat production a more environmentally benign process. Clearly, much is unknown. Data gaps remain; improvements in practice are needed and, in some cases, forthcoming. Supply chain models to ensure the economic viability of RM livestock production at scale are, at best, in the early stages of development. Adoption by farmers and ranchers remains limited, and policies and educational programs that encourage greater participation in RM practice are often lacking or poorly advertised (Francis et al., 1986). Efforts to discourage regenerative meat production by special interests and naivete within certain sectors of the research community have slowed development of sustainable meat production practices (e.g., Willett et al., 2019). Yet, given that meat consumption is increasing worldwide (NAS, 2015), adoption of environmentally regenerative meat production practices seems crucial.

      Although enough food is currently produced to provide a calorically sufficient daily ration to every human being on earth, we are rapidly approaching carrying capacity (Cribb, 2010; Tilman et al., 2011). Within the next 30 years, as the human population approaches 10 billion, as the climate becomes increasingly hostile, as water, soil, biodiversity, and other resources disappear, it will become increasingly difficult to feed ourselves (Larson et al., 1983; Pimentel et al., 1992; IPCC, 2019). Although regenerative production will not slow population growth and will never, in and of itself, provide the solution to world hunger, agriculture, including animal agriculture, can play an important role in GHG mitigation, soil-health restoration, and water and biodiversity conservation (Lal, 2004; Herrero and Thornton, 2013; Sacks et al., 2014; Cassidy and Kleppel, 2017; Montgomery, 2017; Stanley et al., 2018). The effectiveness of agriculture as a tool, not only for feeding ourselves but for meeting the challenges posed by human population growth, and in the process providing a sustainable income to farmers and ranchers has been suggested by research and demonstrated in practice (Food Agriculture Organization, 2013; Kleppel, 2014; Teague and Barnes, 2017; Brown, 2018; Massy, 2018; Amadu et al., 2020). Livestock production represents a tool, not only for providing calories and protein to our species over the next half century, but for ensuring the livability of our planet to humans and myriad other species well into the future.

      Author's Note

      Ungulates are key to human nutrition and the functioning of Earth's ecosystems. Nonetheless, animal agriculture is a significant contributor to grassland degradation and soil destruction, water pollution and depletion, and global greenhouse gas emissions. It seems a non-sequitur that the production of food, part of our life support system, should be linked to degradation of the environment (i.e., our life support system). I reviewed the literature on two approaches to livestock management, one based on industrial agriculture, the other on regenerative agriculture, to ascertain whether one system is environmentally benign relative to the other. There is a lack of consensus on which approach is less destructive of plant communities or soil structure, though regenerative management appears to support larger, more diverse soil microbial communities. Furthermore, regenerative animal agriculture appears less likely to contribute to water pollution, to have lower water withdrawal requirements, and to be associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and higher greenhouse gas removal rates than industrial management. By broadening the focus of animal agriculture to include both production and stewardship we can feed our species while reducing damage to the environment.

      Author Contributions

      The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

      Conflict of Interest

      The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

      I am grateful to F. D. Provenza for many useful conversations and for comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

      References Abdel-Magid A. H. Schuman G. E. Hart R. H. (1987). Soil bulk density and water infiltration as affected by grazing systems. J. Range Manag. 40, 307309. 10.2307/3898725 Acocks J. P. H. (1966a). Non-selective grazing as a means of veld reclamation. Proc. Grassland Soc. South. Afr. 1, 3339. 10.1080/00725560.1966.9648517 Acocks J. P. H. (1966b). Agriculture in relation to a changing vegetation. South Afr. J. Sci. 52, 101108. Agouridis C. T. Workman S. R. Warner R. T. Jennings G. D. (2005). Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: a review. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 41, 591606. 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03757.x Alkemade R. Reid R. S. van den Berg M. de Leeuw J. Jeuken M. (2013). Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 2090020905. 10.1073/pnas.101101310822308313 Allen L. J. S. Allen E. J. Kunst C. R. G. Sosebee R. E. (1991). A diffusion model for dispersal of Opuntia Imbricata (Cholla) on rangeland. J. Ecol. 79, 11231135. 10.2307/2261103 Amadu F. O. Miller D. C. McNamara P. E. (2020). Agroforestry as a pathway to agricultural yield impacts in climate-smart agriculture investments: evidence from southern Malawi. Ecol. Econ. 167:106443. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106443 Archibald S. (2008). African grazing lawns: How fire, rainfall, and grazer numbers interact to affect grass community states. J. Wildl. Manage. 72, 492501. 10.2193/2007-04525231416 Badgery W. S. (2017). Longer rest periods for intensive rotational grazing limit diet quality of sheep without enhancing environmental benefits. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 34, 99109. 10.2989/10220119.2017.1329752 Balfour E. (1943). The Living Soil. London: Faber and Faber. Baltica M. Z. Boskovica M. (2015). When man met meat: meat in human nutrition from ancient times till today. Proc. Food Sci. 5, 69. 10.1016/j.profoo.2015.09.002 Bardgett R. D. Jones A. C. Jones D. L. Kemmitt S. J. Cook R. Hobbs P. J. (2001). Soil microbial community patterns related to the history and intensity of grazing in sub-montane ecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 16531664. 10.1016/S0038-0717(01)00086-4 Bardgett R. D. Leemans D. K. (1995). The short-term effects of cessation of fertiliser applications, liming, and grazing on microbial biomass and activity in a reseeded upland grassland soil. Biol. Fert. Soils 19, 148154. 10.1007/BF00336151 Bardgett R. D. Leemans D. K. Cook R. Hobbs P. J. (1997). Seasonality of soil biota of grazed and ungrazed hill grasslands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 12851294. 10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00019-9 Bardgett R. D. Wardle D. A. Yeates G. W. (1998). Linking above-ground and below-ground interactions: how plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil organisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 18671878. 10.1016/S0038-0717(98)00069-824167508 Barnes D. L. Denny R. P. (1991). A comparison of continuous and rotational grazing on veld at two stocking rates. J. Grassland Soc. South Afr. 8, 168173. 10.1080/02566702.1991.9648285 Beauchemin K. A. Kreuzer M. O'Mara F. McAllister T. A. (2008). Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48, 2127. 10.1071/EA07199 Bellis M. (2018). History of American Agriculture. Available online at: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-american-agriculture-farm-machinery-4074385 (accessed March 20, 2020). Belsky A. J. (1987). The effects of grazing: confounding of ecosystem, community and organism scales. Am Nat. 129, 777783. 10.1086/284674 Bishopp T. (2020). How a Grazing Plan Prevented a Wreck. On Pasture. Available online at: https://onpasture.com/2020/01/13/how-a-grazing-plan-prevented-a-wreck/ (accessed March 21, 2020). Booysen P. De V. (1969). An analysis of the fundamentals of grazing management systems. Proc. Ann. Congr. Grassland Soc. South. Afr. 4, 8491. 10.1080/00725560.1969.9648593 Borlaug N. E. (1970). Nobel Lecture: The Green Revolution, Peace, and Humanity. Noble Peace Prize, Oslo. Borlaug N. E. (2002). Feeding a world of 10 billion people: the miracle ahead. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 38, 221228. 10.1079/IVP2001279 Bouma J. (2002). Land quality indicators of sustainable land management across scales. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88, 129136. 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00248-1 Briske D. D. Bestelmeyer B. T. Brown J. R. Fuhlendorf S. D. Polley H. W. (2013). The Savory method cannot green deserts or reverse climate change. Rangelands 35, 7274. 10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.1 Briske D. D. Derner J. D. Brown J. R. Fuhlendorf S. D. Teague W. R. Havstad K. M. . (2008). Rotational grazing on rangelands: reconciliation of perception and experimental evidence. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 61, 317. 10.2111/06-159R.1 Briske D. D. Sayre N. F. Huntsinger L. Fernandez-Gimenez M. Budd B. . (2011). Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing debate: Integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 64, 325334. 10.2111/REM-D-10-00084.1 Brown G. (2016). The Regeneration of Our Lands: A Producer's Perspective. TEDXGrand Forks, ND. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time__continue=6andv=QfTZ0rnowccandfeature=emb__title (accessed March 18, 2020). Brown G. (2018). Dirt to Soil. White Water Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 240.18378646 Brown L. R. (1970). The social impact of the green revolution. Int. Concil 3, 545. Capra F. (2005). Complexity and life. Emergence 4, 1533. 10.1207/S15327000EM041andamp;2-03 Cassidy L. R. Kleppel G. S. (2017). The effect of grazing regime on grassland bird abundance in New York State. Northeastern Nat. 24, 8698. 10.1656/045.024.0sp807 Chadwick D. Sommer S. Thorman R. Fangueiroe D. Cardenas L. Amon B. . (2011). Manure management: implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 166167, 514531. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.036 Cingolani A. M. Noy-Meir I. Díaz S. (2005). Grazing effects on rangeland diversity: a synthesis of contemporary models. Ecol. Appl. 15, 757773. 10.1890/03-5272 Collins H. (1981). 'Son of seven sexes': the social destruction of a physical phenomenon. Soc. Stud. Sci. 11, 3362. 10.1177/030631278101100103 Cribb J. (2010). The Coming Famine. Berkeley, CA: University of California. 10.1525/9780520947160 Crosson P. Pimentel D. Harvey C. Resosudarno P. Sinclair K. Kurz D. (1995). Soil erosion estimates and costs. Science 269, 461465. 10.1126/science.269.5223.46117842347 Daubenmire R. F. (1940). Plant succession due to overgrazing in the Agropyron Bunchgrass prairie of Southeastern Washington. Ecology 21, 5564. 10.2307/1930618 DeRamus H. A. Clement T. C. Giampola D. D. Dickison P. C. (2003). Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. J. Environ. Qual. 32, 269277. 10.2134/jeq2003.269012549566 Derner J. D. Hart R. H. (2007). Grazing-induced modifications to peak standing crop in northern mixed-grass prairie. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 60, 270276. 10.2111/1551-5028(2007)60[270:GMTPSC]2.0.CO;2 Derner J. D. Schuman G. E. (2007). Carbon Sequestration and Rangelands: A Synthesis of Land Management and Precipitation Effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 62. Available online at: https://link-gale-com.libproxy.albany.edu/apps/doc/A163390875/AONE?u=albanyuandsid=AONEandxid=cc86e00c (accessed March 18, 2020). Doran J. W. (2002). Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into practice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88, 119127. 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00246-8 Doran J. W. Stamatiadis S. I. Haberern J. (2002). Soil health as an indicator of sustainable management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88, 107110. 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00250-X Dowhower S. L. Teague W. R. Casey K. D. Daniel R. (2019). Soil greenhouse gas emissions as impacted by soil moisture and temperature under continuous and holistic planned grazing in native tallgrass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 286:106647. 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106647 Drewry J. J. (2006). Natural recovery of soil physical properties from treading damage of pastoral soils in new zealand and australia: a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 159169. 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.028 Ebner P. (2017). CAFOs and Public Health: Pathogens and Manure. Technical Paper ID-356. West Lafayette, IN, Purdue Extension, Purdue University. Farooq M. Siddique K. H. M. (2014). Conservation Agriculture. Heidelberg: Springer International. FDA (U.S. Food Drug Administration) (2013). Phasing Out Certain Antibiotic Use in Farm Animals. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/phasing-out-certain-antibiotic-use-farm-animals (accessed March 18, 2020) FDA (U.S. Food Drug Administration). (2019). Antimicrobial Resistance. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/safety-health/antimicrobial-resistance (accessed March 18, 2020). Feingold B. J. Silbergeld E. K. Curriero F. C. van Cleef B. A. G. L. Heck M. E. O. C. Kluytmans J. A. J. W. (2012). Livestock density as risk factor for livestock-associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, the Netherlands. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18, 11411149. 10.3201/eid1811.11185023092646 Field C. B. Behrenfeld M. J. Randerson J. T. Falkowski P. (1998). Primary production of the biosphere: Integrating terrestrial and oceanic components. Science 281, 236240. 10.1126/science.281.5374.2379657713 Flack S. (2016). The Art and Science of Grazing. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 230. Foley J. A. (1994). Net primary productivity in the terrestrial biosphere: the application of a global model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 99, 2077320783. Food and Agriculture Organization (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 115. Food and Agriculture Organization (2019). FAO's work on climate change, in United Nations Conference on Climate Change, 2019 (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 38. Food and Agriculture Organization (2020). The Contribution of Agriculture to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Francis C. A. Harwood R. R. Parr J. F. (1986). The potential for regenerative agriculture in the developing world. Am. J. Alter. Agric. 1, 6574. 10.1017/S0889189300000904 Frank D. A. (2005). The interactive effects of grazing ungulates and aboveground production on grassland diversity. Oecologia 143, 629634. 10.1007/s00442-005-0019-215800752 Frank D. A. Groffman P. M. Evans R. D. Tracy B. F. (2000). Ungulate stimulation of nitrogen cycling in yellowstone park grasslands. Oecologia 123, 116123. 10.1007/s00442005099628308736 Frank D. A. McNaughton S. J. Tracy B. F. (1998). The ecology of the earth's grazing ecosystems. BioScience 48, 513521. 10.2307/1313313 Franzluebbers A. J. Stuedemann J. A. Franklin D. H. (2012). Water infiltration and surface-soil structural properties as influenced by animal traffic in the Southern Piedmont USA. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 27, 256265. 10.1017/S1742170511000378 Gerrish J. (2004). Management Intensive Grazing. Greeley, CO: Acres, USA, 315.10416169 Girard Cartier C. B. (2017). Grazing and the coupling of vascular plant and soil microbial diversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern New York (dissertation). State University of New York, Albany, NY. Girard Cartier C. B. Kleppel G. S. (2015). Grazing as a control for the spread of mile-a-minute (Persicaria perfoliata) and the restoration of biodiversity in plant communities in a lower New York State parkland. Ecol. Restor. 33, 8289. 10.3368/er.33.1.82 Girard Cartier C. B. Kleppel G. S. (2017). Grazing and the coupling of biodiversity in the vascular plant and soil microbial communities. special issue on the natural history of agricultural landscapes. Northeastern Nat. 24, 6785. 10.1656/045.024.0sp806 Goodloe S. (1969). Short-duration grazing in rhodesia. J. Range Manag. 22, 369373. 10.2307/3895844 Gosnell H. Grimm K. Goldstein B. E. (2020). A half century of holistic management: what does the evidence reveal? Agric. Hum. Val. 37, 849867. 10.1007/s10460-020-10016-w Harrison K. A. Bardgett R. D. (2010). Impacts of grazing and browsing by large herbivores on soils and soil biological properties, in The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing, eds I. J. Gordon and H. H. T. Prins (Berlin: Springer), 201216. 10.1007/978-3-540-72422-3_8 Havlik P. Valin H. Herrero M. Obersteiner M. Schmid E. Rufino M. C. . (2014). Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 37093714. 10.1073/pnas.130804411124567375 Hawkins H.-J. Short A. Kirkman K. P. (2017). Does holistic planned grazing work on native rangelands? Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 34, 5963. 10.2989/10220119.2017.1367328 Hayes G. F. Holl K. D. (2003). Cattle grazing impacts on annual forbs and vegetation composition of mesic grasslands in california. Conserv. Biol. 17, 16941702. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00281.x Herbert S. Hashemi M. Chickering-Sears C. Weis S. (2020). Conserving Ammonia In Manure. CDLE Pub. 09-50. UMass Extension Service. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Herrero M. Havlik P. Valin H. Notenbaert A. Rofino M. C. Thornton P. K. (2013). Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 2088820893. 10.1073/pnas.130814911024344273 Herrero M. Thornton P. K. (2013). Livestock and global change: emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 2087820881. 10.1073/pnas.132184411124344313 Hilario M. C. Wrange-Monnig N. Isselstein J. (2017). Behavioral patterns of (co-)grazing cattle and sheep on swards differing in plant diversity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 191, 1723. 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.009 Hoffman M. T. (2003). ‘Nature's method of grazing': Non-Selective Grazing (NSG) as a means of veld reclamation in South Africa. South Afr. J. Bot. 69, 9298. 10.1016/S0254-6299(15)30363-X Holechek J. L. Gomes H. Molinar F. Galt D. Valdez R. (2000). Short-term grazing: the facts in 1999. Rangelands 22, 1822. 10.2458/azu_rangelands_v22i1_holechek Howard A. (1940). An Agricultural Testament. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Howard A. (1947). The Soil and Health. Lexington: University of Kentucky. Howell J. (2008). For the Love of Land: Global Case Studies of Grazing in Nature's Image. North Charleston, SC: BookSurge. Ikerd J. E. (2008). Crisis and Opportunity. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Imhoff D. (Ed). (2010). The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC. 151. IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization, 32. IPCC (2019). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Geneva. Jackson W. (2002). Natural systems agriculture: a truly radical alternative. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 88, 111117. 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00247-X Janis C. (2010). An evolutionary history of browsing and grazing ungulates, in The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing, eds. I. J Gordon and H. H. T. Prins (Berlin: Springer), 2145. 10.1007/978-3-540-72422-3_2 Kelly V. R. Lovett G. M. Weathers K. C. Likens G. E. (2005). Trends in atmospheric ammonium concentrations in relation to atmospheric sulfate and ammonia. Environ. Poll. 135, 363369. 10.1016/j.envpol.2004.11.00915749534 Kleppel G. (2014). The Emergent Agriculture. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Kleppel G. S. (2019). Microbial community structure in pasture and hayfield soils of the Helderberg region of New York State: a comparison of management strategies. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 43, 10311053. 10.1080/21683565.2019.1591564 Kleppel G. S. Girard C. LaBarge E. Caggiano S. (2011). Invasive plant control by livestock: from targeted eradication to ecosystem restoration. Ecol. Restor. 29, 209211. 10.3368/er.29.3.209 Lal R. (2001). Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degrad. Dev. 12, 519539. 10.1002/ldr.47228076357 Lal R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ. Int. 30, 981990. 10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.00515196846 Lal R. (2015). Sequestering carbon and increasing productivity by conservation agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv. 70, 55A−62A. 10.2489/jswc.70.3.55A Lal R. (2019). Conceptual basis of managing soil carbon: inspired by nature and driven by science. J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 29A−34A. 10.2489/jswc.74.2.29A Lal R. (2020). Integrating animal husbandry with crops and trees. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:113. 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00113 Larson W. E. Pierce F. J. Dowdy R. H. (1983). The threat of soil erosion to long-term crop production. Science 219, 458465. 10.1126/science.219.4584.45817742806 Laycock W. A. Conrad P. W. (1967). Effect of grazing on soil compaction as measured by bulk density on a high elevation cattle range. J. Range Manag. 20, 136141. 10.2307/3895792 Liu H. Li J. Li X. Zheng Y. Feng S. Jiang G. (2015). Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions through replacement of chemical fertilizer with organic manure in a temperate farmland. Sci. Bull. 60, 598606. 10.1007/s11434-014-0679-6 Liu J. Feng C. Wang D. Wang L. Wilsey B. J. Zhong Z. (2015). Impacts of grazing by different large herbivores in grassland depend on plant species diversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 10531106. 10.1111/1365-2664.12456 Lupo C. D. Clay D. E. Benning J. L. Stone J. J. (2013). Life-cycle assessment of the beef cattle production system for the northern great plains, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 42, 13861394. 10.2134/jeq2013.03.010124216416 Marion B. Bonis A. Boulillé J.-B. (2010). How much does grazing-induced heterogeneity impact plant diversity in wet grasslands? Ecoscience 17, 229239. 10.2980/17-3-3315 Massy C. (2018). Call of the Reed Warbler. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. McCollum F. T. Gillen R. T. Karges B. R. Hodges M. E. (1999). Stocker cattle response to grazing management in tallgrass prairie. J. Range Manag. 52, 120126. 10.2307/4003504 McNaughton S. J. (1984). Grazing lawns: animals in herds, plant form, and coevolution. Am. Nat. 124, 863886. 10.1086/284321 McNaughton S. J. (1985). Ecology of a grazing ecosystem: the serengeti. Ecol. Monographs 55, 259294. 10.2307/1942578 McNaughton S. J. (1986). Grazing lawns: on domesticated and wild grazers. Am. Nat. 128, 937939. 10.1086/284615 McNaughton S. J. (1990). Mineral nutrition and seasonal movements of African migratory ungulates. Nature 345, 613615. 10.1038/345613a03393225 Merrill E. H. Stanton N. L. Hak J. C. (1994). Responses of bluebunch wheatgrass, idaho fescue, and nematodes to ungulate grazing in yellowstone national park. Oikos 69, 231-240. 10.2307/3546143 Meuret M. Provenza F. (2014). The Art and Science of Shepherding. Greeley, CO: Acres, USA. Milchunas D. G. Lauenroth W. K. (1993). Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecol. Monographs 63, 327366. 10.2307/2937150 Milchunas D. G. Sala O. E. Lauenroth W. K. (1988). A generalized model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community. Am. Natural. 132, 87106. 10.1086/284839 Misselbrook T. (2015). Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions – Who emits more? Presented at Sustainable Food Trust Meeting (Rathansted). Available online at: https://www.slideshare.net/Sustainablefoodtrust/tom-misselbrook (accessed July 2, 2020). Mligo C. (2015). The impact of livestock grazing on soil characteristics in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. J. Geosci. Environ. Protect. 3, 2437. 10.4236/gep.2015.39004 Montgomery D. R. (2017). Growing a Revolution. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Nader G. Tate K. W. Atwill R. Bushnell J. (1998). Water quality effect of rangeland beef cattle excrement. Rangelands 20, 1925. NAS (2015). Global considerations for animal agriculture research, in Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability, ed National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academies Press), 215309. Oates L. G. Undersander D. J. Gratton C. Bell M. M. Jackson R. D. (2018). Management-intensive rotational grazing enhances forage production and quality of subhumid cool-season pastures. Crop Sci. 51, 892901. 10.2135/cropsci2010.04.0216 Oksanen L. Fretwell S. D. Arruda J. Niemela P. (1981). Exploitation ecosystems in gradients of primary productivity. Am. Nat. 118, 240261. 10.1086/283817 Olivier J. G. J. Peters J. A. H. W. (2018). Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Publication Number 3125. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Owen-Smith N. Fryxell J. M. Merrill E. H. (2010). Foraging theory upscaled: behavioral ecology of herbivore movement. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 365, 22672278. 10.1098/rstb.2010.009520566503 Pain B. F. Weerden T. J. Chambers B. J. Phillips V. R. Jarvis S. C. (1998). A new inventory of ammonia emissions from UK agriculture. Atmosp. Environ. 32, 309313. 10.1016/S1352-2310(96)00352-4 Park J.-Y. Ale S. Teague W. R. Jeong J. (2017). Evaluating the ranch and watershed scale impacts of using traditional and adaptive multi-paddock grazing on runoff, sediment and nutrient losses in North Texas, USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 240, 3244. 10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.004 Parris K. (2011). Impact of agriculture on water pollution in OECD Countries: recent trends and future prospects. Int. J. Water Res. Dev. 27, 3352. 10.1080/07900627.2010.531898 Patra A. K. Abbadie L. Clays-josserand A Degrange V. Grayston S. J. L'Oiseau P. . (2005). Effects of grazing on microbial functional groups involved in soil N dynamics. Ecol. Monographs, 75 6580. 10.1890/03-0837 Pelletier N. Pirog R. Rasmussen R. (2010). Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the upper midwestern united states. Agric. Syst. 103, 380389. 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.009 Pimentel D. (1997). Soil erosion and agricultural productivity: the global population/food problem. GIAA 6, 197204. 10.14512/gaia.6.3.7 Pimentel D. (2006). Soil erosion and agricultural productivity: the global population/food problem. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 8, 119137. 10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8 Pimentel D. Allen J. Beers A. Guinand L. Linder R. McLaughlin P. . (1987). World agriculture and soil erosion. BioScience 37, 277283. 10.2307/1310591 Pimentel D. Burgess M. (2013). Soil erosion threatens food production. Agriculture 3, 443463. 10.3390/agriculture303044312178968 Pimentel D. Hepperly P. Hanson J. Douds D. Seidel R. (2006). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55, 573582. 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2 Pimentel D. Stachow U. Takacs D. A. Brubaker H. W. Dumas A. R. Meaney J. J. . (1992). Conserving biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems. BioScience 42, 354362. 10.2307/1311782 Pollan M. (2006). The Omnivore's Dilemma. New York, NY: Penguin Publishing. Pollard S. (1981). Peaceful Conquest: The Industrialization of Europe 1756-1970. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Revelle R. (1976). The resources available for agriculture. Sci. Am. 235, 164179. 10.1038/scientificamerican0976-164 Rotz C. A. Asem-Hiablie S. Place S. Thoma G. (2019). Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States. Agric. Syst. 169, 113. 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005 Rotz C. A. Corson M. S Chianese D. S Montes F Hafner S. D Bonifacio H. F. . (2016). Integrated Farm System Model: USDA Agricultural Research Service, University Park, Pennsylvania. Available online at: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80700500/Reference%20Manual.pdf (accessed April 5 2018). Rowntree J. E. Ryals R. DeLonge M. S. Teague W. R. Chiavegato M. B. Byck P. . (2019). Potential mitigation of midwest grass-finished beef production emissions with soil carbon sequestration in the United States of America. J. Food Agric. Soci. 4, 3138. Sacks A. D. Teague R. Provenza F. Itzkan S. Laurie J. (2014). Restoring atmospheric carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels: re-establishing the evolutionary grassland-grazer relationship, in Geotherapy, eds T. Goreau, R.W. Larson, J. Campe (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press),155194. 10.1201/b13788-10 Salatin J. (2019). Move ‘em Every Day. Ridgeland: The Stockman – Grass Farmer. Savory A. (1978). A holistic approach to ranch management using short duration grazing, in Proceedings of the 1st International Rangeland Congress, ed D. N. Hyder, ((Denver, CO: Society for Range Management), 555557 Savory A. (1983). The Savory grazing method or holistic resource management. Rangelands 5, 155159. Savory A. (2013). How to Green the World's Deserts and Reverse Climate Change. Long Beach, CA: TEDxTalk. Available at: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=alan+savory+tedx+talkanddocid=608046036138919958andmid=A979A6423A680ED5400CA979A6423A680ED5400Candview=detailandFORM=VIRE (accessed July 8, 2020). Savory A. Butterworth J. (1999). Holistic Management, 2nd Edn. Washington, DC: Island Press. Savory A. Butterworth J. (2016). Holistic Management, 3rd Edn. Washington, DC: Island Press. Savory A. Parsons S. (1980). The Savory grazing method. Rangelands 2:234237. Schlosser C. A. Strzepek K. Gao X. Fant C. Blanc E. Paltsey S. . (2014). The future of global water stress: an integrated assessment. Earth's Future 2, 341361. 10.1002/2014EF000238 Schlosser E. (2001). Fast Food Nation. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin. Sherren K. Kent C. (2019). Who's afraid of Allan Savory? Scientometric polarization of Holistic Management as competing understandings. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 34, 7792. 10.1017/S1742170517000308 Shiva V. (2016). The Violence of the Green Revolution. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press. Skarpe C. Hester A. J. (2010). Plant traits, browsing and grazing herbivores, and vegetation dynamics, in The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing, eds I. J. Gordon and H. H. T. Prins (Berlin: Springer), 217261. 10.1007/978-3-540-72422-3_9 Smith F. A. Hammond J. I. Balka M. A. Elliott S. M. Lyons S. K. Pardia M. I. . (2016). Exploring the influence of ancient and historic megaherbivore extirpations on the global methane budget. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 874879. 10.1073/pnas.150254711226504225 Sneath R. W. Beline F. Hilhorst M. A. Peu P. (2006). Monitoring GHG from manure stores from organic and conventional dairy farms. Agric. Environ. Ecosyst. 112, 122128. 10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.020 Stanley P. L. Rowntree J. E. Beede D. K. DeLonge M. S. Hamm M. W. . (2018). Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agric. Syst. 162, 249258. 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003 Stuart-Hill G. C. Mentis M. T. (1982). Coevolution of African grasses and large herbivores. Proc. Ann. Congr. Grassland Soc. South. Afr. 17, 122128. 10.1080/00725560.1982.9648969 Sutton M. A. Dragosits U. Tang Y. S. Fowler D. (2000). Ammonia emissions from non-agricultural sources in the UK. Atmosp. Environ. 34, 855869. 10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00362-3 Teague R. (2014). Deficiencies in the Briske et al. rebuttal of the Savory method. Rangelands 36, 3738. 10.2111/1551-501X-36.1.37 Teague R. Barnes M. (2017). Grazing management that regenerates ecosystem function and grazingland livelihoods. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 34, 7786. 10.2989/10220119.2017.133470629401363 Teague R. Provenza F. Kreuter U. Steffens T. Barnes M. (2013). Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? J. Environ. Manag. 128, 699717. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.06423850765 Teague W. R. Dowhower S. L. Baker S. A. Ansley R. J. Kreuter U. P. (2020). Soil and herbaceous plant responses to patch burns under continuous and rotational grazing. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 137, 113123. 10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.010 Teague W. R. Dowhower S. L. Baker S. A. Haile N. DeLaune P. B. Conover D. M. (2011). Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota, soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141, 310322. 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009 Teague W. R. Provenza F. D. Norton B. E. Steffens T. Barnes M. K. Kothmann M. M. Roath R. L. (2009). Benefits of multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: Limitations of experimental grazing research and knowledge gaps, in Grasslands: Ecology, Management and Restoration, ed H. G. Schroder (New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers), 4180. Thurow T. L. Blackburn W. H. Taylor C. A. Jr. (1986). Hydrologic characteristics of vegetation types as affected by livestock grazing systems, edwards plateau, texas. J. Range Manage. 39, 505509. 10.2307/3898758 Tilman D. Christian B. Jason H. Befort B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 2026020264. 10.1073/pnas.111643710822106295 Toombs T. P. Roberts M. G. (2009). Are natural resources conservation service range management investments working at cross-purposes with wildlife habitat goals on western United States Rangelands? Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 62, 351355. 10.2111/08-027.1 UMass (Sustainable UMass) (2020). Emissions. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Available online at: https://www.umass.edu/sustainability/climate-change-energy/emissions (accessed, June 29, 2020). USDA/ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Economic Research Service) (2019a). Irrigation and Water Use. Available online at: file:///C:/Users/gklep/Desktop/Frontiers%20Special%20Issue/Kleppel%20Frontiers%20ms/References/USDA.%202019.%20Irrigation.pdf (accessed March 20, 2020). USDA/ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Economic Research Service) (2019b). Irrigated Agriculture in the United States. Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/irrigated-agriculture-in-the-united-states/ (accessed March 20, 2020). USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2016). Toxicological Review of Ammonia Noncancer Inhalation. CASRN 7664-41-7, Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2017). Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint Source Pollution, Nonpoint Source: Agriculture. Available online at: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/nps/nonpoint-source-agriculture__.html (accessed March 20, 2020). USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2020). Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2018 (accessed March 20, 2020). USGS (U.S. Geological Service) (2005). Estimated Use of Water in the United States: County-Level Data for 2005. (2005). Available online at: https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/ (accessed 1 September, 2020). Vale P. Gibbs H. Vale R. Christie M. Florence E. Munger J. Sabaini E. (2019). The expansion of intensive beef farming to the Brazilian Amazon. Global Environ. Change 57:101922. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.006 Venter Z. S. Hawkins H.-J. Cramer M. D. (2017). Implications of historical interactions between herbivoryand fire for rangeland management in African savannas. Ecosphere 8:e01946. 10.1002/ecs2.1946 Verchot L. V. Groffman P. M. Frank D. A. (2002). Landscape versus ungulate control of gross mineralization and gross nitrification in semi-arid grasslands of Yellowstone National Park. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 16911699. 10.1016/S0038-0717(02)00155-4 Villalba J. J. Provenza F. D. (2009). Learning and dietary choice in herbivores. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 62, 399406. 10.2111/08-076.1 Voisin A. (1959). Grass Productivity. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wang T. Teague W. R. Park S. C. (2016). Evaluation of continuous and multipaddock grazing on vegetation and livestock performance—a modeling approach. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 69, 457464. 10.1016/j.rama.2016.07.003 Wang T. Teague W. R. Park S. C. Bevers S. (2015). GHG mitigation potential of different grazing strategies in the United States Southern Great Plains. Sustainability 7, 1350013521. 10.3390/su71013500 Warren S. D. Blackburn W. H. Taylor C. A. Jr. (1986a). Soil hydrologic response to number of pastures and stocking density under intensive rotation grazing. J. Range Manag. 39, 500504. 10.2307/3898757 Warren S. D. Thurow T. L. Blackburn W. H. Garza N. E. (1986b). The influence of livestock trampling under intensive rotation grazing on soil hydrologic characteristics. J. Range Manag. 39, 491495. 10.2307/3898755 Webb J. Menzi H. Pain B. F. Misselbrook T. H. Dämmgen U. Hendricks H. Döhler H. (2005). Managing ammonia emissions from livestock in Europe. Environ. Poll. 135, 399406. 10.1016/j.envpol.2004.11.01315749538 Weiske A. Vabitsch A. Olesen J. E. Schelde K. Michel J. Friedrich R. Kaltschmitt M. (2006). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in European conventional and organic dairy farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112, 221232. 10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.023 White R. R. Hall M. B. (2017). Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, E10301E10308. doi/10.1073/pnas.1707322114 10.1073/pnas.170732211429133422 Wiesner M. E. Ruff J. R. Wheeler W. B. (2015). Discovering the Western Past: A Look at the Evidence. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning. Willett W. Rockström J. Loken B. Springmann M. Lang T. Vermeulen S. . (2019). Food in the anthropocene: the EAT-lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet Commiss. 393, 447492. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-430660336 Wirsenius S. Azar C. Berndes G. (2010). How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increase in 2030. Agric. Syst. 103, 621638. 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.005 Wynne B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 2, 111127. 10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2 Yamulki S. (2006). Effect of straw addition on nitrous oxide and methane emissions from stored farmyard manures. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112, 140145. 10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.013 Yoshitake S. Soutome H. Koizumi H. (2014). Deposition and decomposition of cattle dung and its impact on soil properties and plant growth in a cool-temperate pasture. Ecol. Res. 29, 673684. 10.1007/s11284-014-1153-2

      Funding. Internal funding from the University at Albany, SUNY.

      ‘Oh, my dear Thomas, you haven’t heard the terrible news then?’ she said. ‘I thought you would be sure to have seen it placarded somewhere. Alice went straight to her room, and I haven’t seen her since, though I repeatedly knocked at the door, which she has locked on the inside, and I’m sure it’s most unnatural of her not to let her own mother comfort her. It all happened in a moment: I have always said those great motor-cars shouldn’t be allowed to career about the streets, especially when they are all paved with cobbles as they are at Easton Haven, which are{331} so slippery when it’s wet. He slipped, and it went over him in a moment.’ My thanks were few and awkward, for there still hung to the missive a basting thread, and it was as warm as a nestling bird. I bent low--everybody was emotional in those days--kissed the fragrant thing, thrust it into my bosom, and blushed worse than Camille. "What, the Corner House victim? Is that really a fact?" "My dear child, I don't look upon it in that light at all. The child gave our picturesque friend a certain distinction--'My husband is dead, and this is my only child,' and all that sort of thing. It pays in society." leave them on the steps of a foundling asylum in order to insure [See larger version] Interoffice guff says you're planning definite moves on your own, J. O., and against some opposition. Is the Colonel so poor or so grasping—or what? Albert could not speak, for he felt as if his brains and teeth were rattling about inside his head. The rest of[Pg 188] the family hunched together by the door, the boys gaping idiotically, the girls in tears. "Now you're married." The host was called in, and unlocked a drawer in which they were deposited. The galleyman, with visible reluctance, arrayed himself in the garments, and he was observed to shudder more than once during the investiture of the dead man's apparel. HoME香京julia种子在线播放 ENTER NUMBET 0016www.hilegua.org.cn
      www.gooodbar.com.cn
      gxwns.com.cn
      www.sxyhhk.org.cn
      www.old-power.net.cn
      www.tonger.net.cn
      valilly.com.cn
      rediandai.com.cn
      www.tjftz.com.cn
      www.whlrhw.com.cn
      处女被大鸡巴操 强奸乱伦小说图片 俄罗斯美女爱爱图 调教强奸学生 亚洲女的穴 夜来香图片大全 美女性强奸电影 手机版色中阁 男性人体艺术素描图 16p成人 欧美性爱360 电影区 亚洲电影 欧美电影 经典三级 偷拍自拍 动漫电影 乱伦电影 变态另类 全部电 类似狠狠鲁的网站 黑吊操白逼图片 韩国黄片种子下载 操逼逼逼逼逼 人妻 小说 p 偷拍10幼女自慰 极品淫水很多 黄色做i爱 日本女人人体电影快播看 大福国小 我爱肏屄美女 mmcrwcom 欧美多人性交图片 肥臀乱伦老头舔阴帝 d09a4343000019c5 西欧人体艺术b xxoo激情短片 未成年人的 插泰国人夭图片 第770弾み1 24p 日本美女性 交动态 eee色播 yantasythunder 操无毛少女屄 亚洲图片你懂的女人 鸡巴插姨娘 特级黄 色大片播 左耳影音先锋 冢本友希全集 日本人体艺术绿色 我爱被舔逼 内射 幼 美阴图 喷水妹子高潮迭起 和后妈 操逼 美女吞鸡巴 鸭个自慰 中国女裸名单 操逼肥臀出水换妻 色站裸体义术 中国行上的漏毛美女叫什么 亚洲妹性交图 欧美美女人裸体人艺照 成人色妹妹直播 WWW_JXCT_COM r日本女人性淫乱 大胆人艺体艺图片 女同接吻av 碰碰哥免费自拍打炮 艳舞写真duppid1 88电影街拍视频 日本自拍做爱qvod 实拍美女性爱组图 少女高清av 浙江真实乱伦迅雷 台湾luanlunxiaoshuo 洛克王国宠物排行榜 皇瑟电影yy频道大全 红孩儿连连看 阴毛摄影 大胆美女写真人体艺术摄影 和风骚三个媳妇在家做爱 性爱办公室高清 18p2p木耳 大波撸影音 大鸡巴插嫩穴小说 一剧不超两个黑人 阿姨诱惑我快播 幼香阁千叶县小学生 少女妇女被狗强奸 曰人体妹妹 十二岁性感幼女 超级乱伦qvod 97爱蜜桃ccc336 日本淫妇阴液 av海量资源999 凤凰影视成仁 辰溪四中艳照门照片 先锋模特裸体展示影片 成人片免费看 自拍百度云 肥白老妇女 女爱人体图片 妈妈一女穴 星野美夏 日本少女dachidu 妹子私处人体图片 yinmindahuitang 舔无毛逼影片快播 田莹疑的裸体照片 三级电影影音先锋02222 妻子被外国老头操 观月雏乃泥鳅 韩国成人偷拍自拍图片 强奸5一9岁幼女小说 汤姆影院av图片 妹妹人艺体图 美女大驱 和女友做爱图片自拍p 绫川まどか在线先锋 那么嫩的逼很少见了 小女孩做爱 处女好逼连连看图图 性感美女在家做爱 近距离抽插骚逼逼 黑屌肏金毛屄 日韩av美少女 看喝尿尿小姐日逼色色色网图片 欧美肛交新视频 美女吃逼逼 av30线上免费 伊人在线三级经典 新视觉影院t6090影院 最新淫色电影网址 天龙影院远古手机版 搞老太影院 插进美女的大屁股里 私人影院加盟费用 www258dd 求一部电影里面有一个二猛哥 深肛交 日本萌妹子人体艺术写真图片 插入屄眼 美女的木奶 中文字幕黄色网址影视先锋 九号女神裸 和骚人妻偷情 和潘晓婷做爱 国模大尺度蜜桃 欧美大逼50p 西西人体成人 李宗瑞继母做爱原图物处理 nianhuawang 男鸡巴的视屏 � 97免费色伦电影 好色网成人 大姨子先锋 淫荡巨乳美女教师妈妈 性nuexiaoshuo WWW36YYYCOM 长春继续给力进屋就操小女儿套干破内射对白淫荡 农夫激情社区 日韩无码bt 欧美美女手掰嫩穴图片 日本援交偷拍自拍 入侵者日本在线播放 亚洲白虎偷拍自拍 常州高见泽日屄 寂寞少妇自卫视频 人体露逼图片 多毛外国老太 变态乱轮手机在线 淫荡妈妈和儿子操逼 伦理片大奶少女 看片神器最新登入地址sqvheqi345com账号群 麻美学姐无头 圣诞老人射小妞和强奸小妞动话片 亚洲AV女老师 先锋影音欧美成人资源 33344iucoom zV天堂电影网 宾馆美女打炮视频 色五月丁香五月magnet 嫂子淫乱小说 张歆艺的老公 吃奶男人视频在线播放 欧美色图男女乱伦 avtt2014ccvom 性插色欲香影院 青青草撸死你青青草 99热久久第一时间 激情套图卡通动漫 幼女裸聊做爱口交 日本女人被强奸乱伦 草榴社区快播 2kkk正在播放兽骑 啊不要人家小穴都湿了 www猎奇影视 A片www245vvcomwwwchnrwhmhzcn 搜索宜春院av wwwsee78co 逼奶鸡巴插 好吊日AV在线视频19gancom 熟女伦乱图片小说 日本免费av无码片在线开苞 鲁大妈撸到爆 裸聊官网 德国熟女xxx 新不夜城论坛首页手机 女虐男网址 男女做爱视频华为网盘 激情午夜天亚洲色图 内裤哥mangent 吉沢明歩制服丝袜WWWHHH710COM 屌逼在线试看 人体艺体阿娇艳照 推荐一个可以免费看片的网站如果被QQ拦截请复制链接在其它浏览器打开xxxyyy5comintr2a2cb551573a2b2e 欧美360精品粉红鲍鱼 教师调教第一页 聚美屋精品图 中韩淫乱群交 俄罗斯撸撸片 把鸡巴插进小姨子的阴道 干干AV成人网 aolasoohpnbcn www84ytom 高清大量潮喷www27dyycom 宝贝开心成人 freefronvideos人母 嫩穴成人网gggg29com 逼着舅妈给我口交肛交彩漫画 欧美色色aV88wwwgangguanscom 老太太操逼自拍视频 777亚洲手机在线播放 有没有夫妻3p小说 色列漫画淫女 午间色站导航 欧美成人处女色大图 童颜巨乳亚洲综合 桃色性欲草 色眯眯射逼 无码中文字幕塞外青楼这是一个 狂日美女老师人妻 爱碰网官网 亚洲图片雅蠛蝶 快播35怎么搜片 2000XXXX电影 新谷露性家庭影院 深深候dvd播放 幼齿用英语怎么说 不雅伦理无需播放器 国外淫荡图片 国外网站幼幼嫩网址 成年人就去色色视频快播 我鲁日日鲁老老老我爱 caoshaonvbi 人体艺术avav 性感性色导航 韩国黄色哥来嫖网站 成人网站美逼 淫荡熟妇自拍 欧美色惰图片 北京空姐透明照 狼堡免费av视频 www776eom 亚洲无码av欧美天堂网男人天堂 欧美激情爆操 a片kk266co 色尼姑成人极速在线视频 国语家庭系列 蒋雯雯 越南伦理 色CC伦理影院手机版 99jbbcom 大鸡巴舅妈 国产偷拍自拍淫荡对话视频 少妇春梦射精 开心激动网 自拍偷牌成人 色桃隐 撸狗网性交视频 淫荡的三位老师 伦理电影wwwqiuxia6commqiuxia6com 怡春院分站 丝袜超短裙露脸迅雷下载 色制服电影院 97超碰好吊色男人 yy6080理论在线宅男日韩福利大全 大嫂丝袜 500人群交手机在线 5sav 偷拍熟女吧 口述我和妹妹的欲望 50p电脑版 wwwavtttcon 3p3com 伦理无码片在线看 欧美成人电影图片岛国性爱伦理电影 先锋影音AV成人欧美 我爱好色 淫电影网 WWW19MMCOM 玛丽罗斯3d同人动画h在线看 动漫女孩裸体 超级丝袜美腿乱伦 1919gogo欣赏 大色逼淫色 www就是撸 激情文学网好骚 A级黄片免费 xedd5com 国内的b是黑的 快播美国成年人片黄 av高跟丝袜视频 上原保奈美巨乳女教师在线观看 校园春色都市激情fefegancom 偷窥自拍XXOO 搜索看马操美女 人本女优视频 日日吧淫淫 人妻巨乳影院 美国女子性爱学校 大肥屁股重口味 啪啪啪啊啊啊不要 操碰 japanfreevideoshome国产 亚州淫荡老熟女人体 伦奸毛片免费在线看 天天影视se 樱桃做爱视频 亚卅av在线视频 x奸小说下载 亚洲色图图片在线 217av天堂网 东方在线撸撸-百度 幼幼丝袜集 灰姑娘的姐姐 青青草在线视频观看对华 86papa路con 亚洲1AV 综合图片2区亚洲 美国美女大逼电影 010插插av成人网站 www色comwww821kxwcom 播乐子成人网免费视频在线观看 大炮撸在线影院 ,www4KkKcom 野花鲁最近30部 wwwCC213wapwww2233ww2download 三客优最新地址 母亲让儿子爽的无码视频 全国黄色片子 欧美色图美国十次 超碰在线直播 性感妖娆操 亚洲肉感熟女色图 a片A毛片管看视频 8vaa褋芯屑 333kk 川岛和津实视频 在线母子乱伦对白 妹妹肥逼五月 亚洲美女自拍 老婆在我面前小说 韩国空姐堪比情趣内衣 干小姐综合 淫妻色五月 添骚穴 WM62COM 23456影视播放器 成人午夜剧场 尼姑福利网 AV区亚洲AV欧美AV512qucomwwwc5508com 经典欧美骚妇 震动棒露出 日韩丝袜美臀巨乳在线 av无限吧看 就去干少妇 色艺无间正面是哪集 校园春色我和老师做爱 漫画夜色 天海丽白色吊带 黄色淫荡性虐小说 午夜高清播放器 文20岁女性荫道口图片 热国产热无码热有码 2015小明发布看看算你色 百度云播影视 美女肏屄屄乱轮小说 家族舔阴AV影片 邪恶在线av有码 父女之交 关于处女破处的三级片 极品护士91在线 欧美虐待女人视频的网站 享受老太太的丝袜 aaazhibuo 8dfvodcom成人 真实自拍足交 群交男女猛插逼 妓女爱爱动态 lin35com是什么网站 abp159 亚洲色图偷拍自拍乱伦熟女抠逼自慰 朝国三级篇 淫三国幻想 免费的av小电影网站 日本阿v视频免费按摩师 av750c0m 黄色片操一下 巨乳少女车震在线观看 操逼 免费 囗述情感一乱伦岳母和女婿 WWW_FAMITSU_COM 偷拍中国少妇在公车被操视频 花也真衣论理电影 大鸡鸡插p洞 新片欧美十八岁美少 进击的巨人神thunderftp 西方美女15p 深圳哪里易找到老女人玩视频 在线成人有声小说 365rrr 女尿图片 我和淫荡的小姨做爱 � 做爱技术体照 淫妇性爱 大学生私拍b 第四射狠狠射小说 色中色成人av社区 和小姨子乱伦肛交 wwwppp62com 俄罗斯巨乳人体艺术 骚逼阿娇 汤芳人体图片大胆 大胆人体艺术bb私处 性感大胸骚货 哪个网站幼女的片多 日本美女本子把 色 五月天 婷婷 快播 美女 美穴艺术 色百合电影导航 大鸡巴用力 孙悟空操美少女战士 狠狠撸美女手掰穴图片 古代女子与兽类交 沙耶香套图 激情成人网区 暴风影音av播放 动漫女孩怎么插第3个 mmmpp44 黑木麻衣无码ed2k 淫荡学姐少妇 乱伦操少女屄 高中性爱故事 骚妹妹爱爱图网 韩国模特剪长发 大鸡巴把我逼日了 中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片中国张柏芝做爱片 大胆女人下体艺术图片 789sss 影音先锋在线国内情侣野外性事自拍普通话对白 群撸图库 闪现君打阿乐 ady 小说 插入表妹嫩穴小说 推荐成人资源 网络播放器 成人台 149大胆人体艺术 大屌图片 骚美女成人av 春暖花开春色性吧 女亭婷五月 我上了同桌的姐姐 恋夜秀场主播自慰视频 yzppp 屄茎 操屄女图 美女鲍鱼大特写 淫乱的日本人妻山口玲子 偷拍射精图 性感美女人体艺木图片 种马小说完本 免费电影院 骑士福利导航导航网站 骚老婆足交 国产性爱一级电影 欧美免费成人花花性都 欧美大肥妞性爱视频 家庭乱伦网站快播 偷拍自拍国产毛片 金发美女也用大吊来开包 缔D杏那 yentiyishu人体艺术ytys WWWUUKKMCOM 女人露奶 � 苍井空露逼 老荡妇高跟丝袜足交 偷偷和女友的朋友做爱迅雷 做爱七十二尺 朱丹人体合成 麻腾由纪妃 帅哥撸播种子图 鸡巴插逼动态图片 羙国十次啦中文 WWW137AVCOM 神斗片欧美版华语 有气质女人人休艺术 由美老师放屁电影 欧美女人肉肏图片 白虎种子快播 国产自拍90后女孩 美女在床上疯狂嫩b 饭岛爱最后之作 幼幼强奸摸奶 色97成人动漫 两性性爱打鸡巴插逼 新视觉影院4080青苹果影院 嗯好爽插死我了 阴口艺术照 李宗瑞电影qvod38 爆操舅母 亚洲色图七七影院 被大鸡巴操菊花 怡红院肿么了 成人极品影院删除 欧美性爱大图色图强奸乱 欧美女子与狗随便性交 苍井空的bt种子无码 熟女乱伦长篇小说 大色虫 兽交幼女影音先锋播放 44aad be0ca93900121f9b 先锋天耗ばさ无码 欧毛毛女三级黄色片图 干女人黑木耳照 日本美女少妇嫩逼人体艺术 sesechangchang 色屄屄网 久久撸app下载 色图色噜 美女鸡巴大奶 好吊日在线视频在线观看 透明丝袜脚偷拍自拍 中山怡红院菜单 wcwwwcom下载 骑嫂子 亚洲大色妣 成人故事365ahnet 丝袜家庭教mp4 幼交肛交 妹妹撸撸大妈 日本毛爽 caoprom超碰在email 关于中国古代偷窥的黄片 第一会所老熟女下载 wwwhuangsecome 狼人干综合新地址HD播放 变态儿子强奸乱伦图 强奸电影名字 2wwwer37com 日本毛片基地一亚洲AVmzddcxcn 暗黑圣经仙桃影院 37tpcocn 持月真由xfplay 好吊日在线视频三级网 我爱背入李丽珍 电影师傅床戏在线观看 96插妹妹sexsex88com 豪放家庭在线播放 桃花宝典极夜著豆瓜网 安卓系统播放神器 美美网丝袜诱惑 人人干全免费视频xulawyercn av无插件一本道 全国色五月 操逼电影小说网 good在线wwwyuyuelvcom www18avmmd 撸波波影视无插件 伊人幼女成人电影 会看射的图片 小明插看看 全裸美女扒开粉嫩b 国人自拍性交网站 萝莉白丝足交本子 七草ちとせ巨乳视频 摇摇晃晃的成人电影 兰桂坊成社人区小说www68kqcom 舔阴论坛 久撸客一撸客色国内外成人激情在线 明星门 欧美大胆嫩肉穴爽大片 www牛逼插 性吧星云 少妇性奴的屁眼 人体艺术大胆mscbaidu1imgcn 最新久久色色成人版 l女同在线 小泽玛利亚高潮图片搜索 女性裸b图 肛交bt种子 最热门有声小说 人间添春色 春色猜谜字 樱井莉亚钢管舞视频 小泽玛利亚直美6p 能用的h网 还能看的h网 bl动漫h网 开心五月激 东京热401 男色女色第四色酒色网 怎么下载黄色小说 黄色小说小栽 和谐图城 乐乐影院 色哥导航 特色导航 依依社区 爱窝窝在线 色狼谷成人 91porn 包要你射电影 色色3A丝袜 丝袜妹妹淫网 爱色导航(荐) 好男人激情影院 坏哥哥 第七色 色久久 人格分裂 急先锋 撸撸射中文网 第一会所综合社区 91影院老师机 东方成人激情 怼莪影院吹潮 老鸭窝伊人无码不卡无码一本道 av女柳晶电影 91天生爱风流作品 深爱激情小说私房婷婷网 擼奶av 567pao 里番3d一家人野外 上原在线电影 水岛津实透明丝袜 1314酒色 网旧网俺也去 0855影院 在线无码私人影院 搜索 国产自拍 神马dy888午夜伦理达达兔 农民工黄晓婷 日韩裸体黑丝御姐 屈臣氏的燕窝面膜怎么样つぼみ晶エリーの早漏チ○ポ强化合宿 老熟女人性视频 影音先锋 三上悠亚ol 妹妹影院福利片 hhhhhhhhsxo 午夜天堂热的国产 强奸剧场 全裸香蕉视频无码 亚欧伦理视频 秋霞为什么给封了 日本在线视频空天使 日韩成人aⅴ在线 日本日屌日屄导航视频 在线福利视频 日本推油无码av magnet 在线免费视频 樱井梨吮东 日本一本道在线无码DVD 日本性感诱惑美女做爱阴道流水视频 日本一级av 汤姆avtom在线视频 台湾佬中文娱乐线20 阿v播播下载 橙色影院 奴隶少女护士cg视频 汤姆在线影院无码 偷拍宾馆 业面紧急生级访问 色和尚有线 厕所偷拍一族 av女l 公交色狼优酷视频 裸体视频AV 人与兽肉肉网 董美香ol 花井美纱链接 magnet 西瓜影音 亚洲 自拍 日韩女优欧美激情偷拍自拍 亚洲成年人免费视频 荷兰免费成人电影 深喉呕吐XXⅩX 操石榴在线视频 天天色成人免费视频 314hu四虎 涩久免费视频在线观看 成人电影迅雷下载 能看见整个奶子的香蕉影院 水菜丽百度影音 gwaz079百度云 噜死你们资源站 主播走光视频合集迅雷下载 thumbzilla jappen 精品Av 古川伊织star598在线 假面女皇vip在线视频播放 国产自拍迷情校园 啪啪啪公寓漫画 日本阿AV 黄色手机电影 欧美在线Av影院 华裔电击女神91在线 亚洲欧美专区 1日本1000部免费视频 开放90后 波多野结衣 东方 影院av 页面升级紧急访问每天正常更新 4438Xchengeren 老炮色 a k福利电影 色欲影视色天天视频 高老庄aV 259LUXU-683 magnet 手机在线电影 国产区 欧美激情人人操网 国产 偷拍 直播 日韩 国内外激情在线视频网给 站长统计一本道人妻 光棍影院被封 紫竹铃取汁 ftp 狂插空姐嫩 xfplay 丈夫面前 穿靴子伪街 XXOO视频在线免费 大香蕉道久在线播放 电棒漏电嗨过头 充气娃能看下毛和洞吗 夫妻牲交 福利云点墦 yukun瑟妃 疯狂交换女友 国产自拍26页 腐女资源 百度云 日本DVD高清无码视频 偷拍,自拍AV伦理电影 A片小视频福利站。 大奶肥婆自拍偷拍图片 交配伊甸园 超碰在线视频自拍偷拍国产 小热巴91大神 rctd 045 类似于A片 超美大奶大学生美女直播被男友操 男友问 你的衣服怎么脱掉的 亚洲女与黑人群交视频一 在线黄涩 木内美保步兵番号 鸡巴插入欧美美女的b舒服 激情在线国产自拍日韩欧美 国语福利小视频在线观看 作爱小视颍 潮喷合集丝袜无码mp4 做爱的无码高清视频 牛牛精品 伊aⅤ在线观看 savk12 哥哥搞在线播放 在线电一本道影 一级谍片 250pp亚洲情艺中心,88 欧美一本道九色在线一 wwwseavbacom色av吧 cos美女在线 欧美17,18ⅹⅹⅹ视频 自拍嫩逼 小电影在线观看网站 筱田优 贼 水电工 5358x视频 日本69式视频有码 b雪福利导航 韩国女主播19tvclub在线 操逼清晰视频 丝袜美女国产视频网址导航 水菜丽颜射房间 台湾妹中文娱乐网 风吟岛视频 口交 伦理 日本熟妇色五十路免费视频 A级片互舔 川村真矢Av在线观看 亚洲日韩av 色和尚国产自拍 sea8 mp4 aV天堂2018手机在线 免费版国产偷拍a在线播放 狠狠 婷婷 丁香 小视频福利在线观看平台 思妍白衣小仙女被邻居强上 萝莉自拍有水 4484新视觉 永久发布页 977成人影视在线观看 小清新影院在线观 小鸟酱后丝后入百度云 旋风魅影四级 香蕉影院小黄片免费看 性爱直播磁力链接 小骚逼第一色影院 性交流的视频 小雪小视频bd 小视频TV禁看视频 迷奸AV在线看 nba直播 任你在干线 汤姆影院在线视频国产 624u在线播放 成人 一级a做爰片就在线看狐狸视频 小香蕉AV视频 www182、com 腿模简小育 学生做爱视频 秘密搜查官 快播 成人福利网午夜 一级黄色夫妻录像片 直接看的gav久久播放器 国产自拍400首页 sm老爹影院 谁知道隔壁老王网址在线 综合网 123西瓜影音 米奇丁香 人人澡人人漠大学生 色久悠 夜色视频你今天寂寞了吗? 菲菲影视城美国 被抄的影院 变态另类 欧美 成人 国产偷拍自拍在线小说 不用下载安装就能看的吃男人鸡巴视频 插屄视频 大贯杏里播放 wwwhhh50 233若菜奈央 伦理片天海翼秘密搜查官 大香蕉在线万色屋视频 那种漫画小说你懂的 祥仔电影合集一区 那里可以看澳门皇冠酒店a片 色自啪 亚洲aV电影天堂 谷露影院ar toupaizaixian sexbj。com 毕业生 zaixian mianfei 朝桐光视频 成人短视频在线直接观看 陈美霖 沈阳音乐学院 导航女 www26yjjcom 1大尺度视频 开平虐女视频 菅野雪松协和影视在线视频 华人play在线视频bbb 鸡吧操屄视频 多啪啪免费视频 悠草影院 金兰策划网 (969) 橘佑金短视频 国内一极刺激自拍片 日本制服番号大全magnet 成人动漫母系 电脑怎么清理内存 黄色福利1000 dy88午夜 偷拍中学生洗澡磁力链接 花椒相机福利美女视频 站长推荐磁力下载 mp4 三洞轮流插视频 玉兔miki热舞视频 夜生活小视频 爆乳人妖小视频 国内网红主播自拍福利迅雷下载 不用app的裸裸体美女操逼视频 变态SM影片在线观看 草溜影院元气吧 - 百度 - 百度 波推全套视频 国产双飞集合ftp 日本在线AV网 笔国毛片 神马影院女主播是我的邻居 影音资源 激情乱伦电影 799pao 亚洲第一色第一影院 av视频大香蕉 老梁故事汇希斯莱杰 水中人体磁力链接 下载 大香蕉黄片免费看 济南谭崔 避开屏蔽的岛a片 草破福利 要看大鸡巴操小骚逼的人的视频 黑丝少妇影音先锋 欧美巨乳熟女磁力链接 美国黄网站色大全 伦蕉在线久播 极品女厕沟 激情五月bd韩国电影 混血美女自摸和男友激情啪啪自拍诱人呻吟福利视频 人人摸人人妻做人人看 44kknn 娸娸原网 伊人欧美 恋夜影院视频列表安卓青青 57k影院 如果电话亭 avi 插爆骚女精品自拍 青青草在线免费视频1769TV 令人惹火的邻家美眉 影音先锋 真人妹子被捅动态图 男人女人做完爱视频15 表姐合租两人共处一室晚上她竟爬上了我的床 性爱教学视频 北条麻妃bd在线播放版 国产老师和师生 magnet wwwcctv1024 女神自慰 ftp 女同性恋做激情视频 欧美大胆露阴视频 欧美无码影视 好女色在线观看 后入肥臀18p 百度影视屏福利 厕所超碰视频 强奸mp magnet 欧美妹aⅴ免费线上看 2016年妞干网视频 5手机在线福利 超在线最视频 800av:cOm magnet 欧美性爱免播放器在线播放 91大款肥汤的性感美乳90后邻家美眉趴着窗台后入啪啪 秋霞日本毛片网站 cheng ren 在线视频 上原亚衣肛门无码解禁影音先锋 美脚家庭教师在线播放 尤酷伦理片 熟女性生活视频在线观看 欧美av在线播放喷潮 194avav 凤凰AV成人 - 百度 kbb9999 AV片AV在线AV无码 爱爱视频高清免费观看 黄色男女操b视频 观看 18AV清纯视频在线播放平台 成人性爱视频久久操 女性真人生殖系统双性人视频 下身插入b射精视频 明星潜规测视频 mp4 免賛a片直播绪 国内 自己 偷拍 在线 国内真实偷拍 手机在线 国产主播户外勾在线 三桥杏奈高清无码迅雷下载 2五福电影院凸凹频频 男主拿鱼打女主,高宝宝 色哥午夜影院 川村まや痴汉 草溜影院费全过程免费 淫小弟影院在线视频 laohantuiche 啪啪啪喷潮XXOO视频 青娱乐成人国产 蓝沢润 一本道 亚洲青涩中文欧美 神马影院线理论 米娅卡莉法的av 在线福利65535 欧美粉色在线 欧美性受群交视频1在线播放 极品喷奶熟妇在线播放 变态另类无码福利影院92 天津小姐被偷拍 磁力下载 台湾三级电髟全部 丝袜美腿偷拍自拍 偷拍女生性行为图 妻子的乱伦 白虎少妇 肏婶骚屄 外国大妈会阴照片 美少女操屄图片 妹妹自慰11p 操老熟女的b 361美女人体 360电影院樱桃 爱色妹妹亚洲色图 性交卖淫姿势高清图片一级 欧美一黑对二白 大色网无毛一线天 射小妹网站 寂寞穴 西西人体模特苍井空 操的大白逼吧 骚穴让我操 拉好友干女朋友3p