How to respond to people bringing up regenerative agriculture (Allan Savory stuff)?

[teo123]

Many people on Quora are bringing up regenerative agriculture as an argument for consuming animal products being ethical. So, what do you think is the best response to that?

My first instinct was to claim that regenerative agriculture does not scale because land which is not fertile for crops is fertile ground for poisonous plants. However, proponents of the regenerative agriculture claim that is a myth, and I have no idea how to prove it is true.

I also tried to claim cows grazing on some land cannot make it more fertile:

I don’t understand how can a cow grazing on some land make yhe soil more fertile. When a cow grazes on some land, less amino-acids comes out of the cow than the cow eats. Cows don’t have Rhizobium bacteria in them to synthesize amino-acids, right?

However, somebody responded with a claim that Rhizobium bacteria do not produce exactly those amino-acids that various plants need, and that cows are needed to convert the amino-acids that Rhizobia produce into amino-acids that plants actually need.

Grazers churn up the surface and deposit different amino acids than those they eat. At core it’s all the action of bacteria - bacteria break down the grasses so cows get nutrients and bacteria break down the cow dung so the plants get nutrients.

I have no idea how to respond to that.

Proponents of regenerative agriculture also often claim that ungulates somehow make the soil more fertile by making it softer. The only response I could think of was this:

Why would ungulates make soil more fertile? Basic common sense tells me that they make the soil harder as they walk on it.

Though I am not sure that would convince anybody.

Proponents of regenerative agriculture also often claim bacteria and fungi in the ground need animals to digest dead plants:

The above ground part of the plants is supported on highly lignified stems. Lignin is resistant to decay, the stems stay in the air and dry out. Sunlight and lack of moisture mean that it can take years for grass stems to fall down without animal help. Last year’s stems shade the new growth if they are not removed.
Ungulate eating and digestive systems breakdown the plant structure and partially breakdown the cell walls. The remaining manure patty is moist and subject to rapid decomposition and nutrient release.

I responded with:

Well, a quick Google search leads me to sources saying lignin either cannot be digested at all by cows or that they can digest only an insignificant part of it (in the same way we can digest some cellulose).

But this appears no to convince anybody.

I also tried to claim whether regenerative agriculture works is irrelevant to whether it's ethical to drink cow's milk in this day and age:

I don’t have the time to look too much into it, I am studying electrical engineering and the university is killing me. Besides, I fail to see how it is relevant to me. Let’s say there is some technology to make vast areas of infertile land fertile. Let’s say it, as hard as it is to believe, involves animals. So what? The milk I can buy is still produced in a way that destroys the environment, there is no controversy about that.

However, that does not work either:

Teo, there is a lot of controversy. which is why you asked the question. Unless it wasn't a genuine question but a statement of faith masquerading as a question?

I have invested considerable time in providing you with accurate information and sources for further reading.

I was wondering what you think?