4 ms·
They're talking about the methane, and also about using land to grow grain for feeding the cows.
by lookACamel 8y ago
They're talking about the methane, and also about using land to grow grain for feeding the cows.
- graeme 8y agoSo in the latter case, more humans do cause co2 to the extent we each need food and land uses changes to provide that food. In the case of cows, it's the same calculus: land use change to feed us. Just, more land use change in the case of cows. So, therefore, a cow raised on pasture that isn't suited for other farming wouldn't be especially co2 producing by that measure, correct? Apart from methane. So, we could reduce cows contributions to: * Eliminating their methane (seaweed experiments, etc) * restricting cattle to land suitable for pasture but not so suitable for crops If cattle were only raised in those cases, that would effectively negate their warming impact? This would still mean a massive reduction in beef and much higher prices of course.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- moltar 8y agoThat is an example of excellent critical thinking skills.
- graeme 8y agoThanks! The cow emissions thing has had me confused for a while. I looked into it a bit further, and it seems cows produce more methane on grass, which is not good. I don't know if those seaweed proposals work on a grass based diet, or if they're only for cows largely fed grain.