4 ms·

That methane emission meme is not accurate, as simple logic reveals. The methane produced by cows is not going to be significantly more than the equivalent prod

That methane emission meme is not accurate, as simple logic reveals. The methane produced by cows is not going to be significantly more than the equivalent produced by the same amount of plant material left to rot/decompose. One would even have to reasonably theorize and possibly could even conclude that the energy the cow takes out of the plant material to produce milk and meat and heat, actually captures energy that rotting plant material would have converted into methane. An interesting side story about this issue is that it has been shown a long time ago that ruminants actually enrich the environment (assuming non-industrial practices) through both processing the plant material and both converting it into compost and also seeding it with bacteria, while also trampling the plant material into the ground and thereby facilitating the breakdown. That lesson came out of the discovery of Allan Savory a Rhodesian/Zimbabwean ecologist that desertification only accelerated once huge herds were culled in an assumption that the grazing was causing the desertification, rather than that they were part of the system. I encourage you to reassess what you surely are convinced about.

ornornor 6y ago
> ruminants actually enrich the environment (assuming non-industrial practices) Wink wink. What’s the ratio of non industrially farmed beef vs industrially farmed beef anecdotes non withstanding?
mikepurvis 6y ago
Follow the foodchain, though— the "plant material" that industrially farmed cows are eating is almost entirely grown-for-purpose corn for which there are substantial inputs in terms of petroleum-based fertilizers. And even if there weren't, those same fields left fallow would be capturing the same atmospheric carbon for plant/tree growth and holding it for much longer than a crop which is being harvested every season. It's not like the cows are eating exclusively grass clippings which were just going to be left to rot otherwise.
ceph_ 6y ago
This post is disingenuous at best. Want to cite some credible sources that back it up? Methane is produced by decomposition in oxygen deprived anerobic environments. Like a cows gut or a tidal bog. Grass rotting in a field will not produce the same levels of methane as grass digested by cows. And that's not even touching on the rate at which it's released. Are you going to say burning the field is just as bad as letting it decompose because they both release CO2?
danShumway 6y ago
I've commented to the same effect in the past[0], but we grow food for animals. It's not like we have a giant pile of rotting soy/corn, so we might as well have some cattle eat it. We grow a lot more soy/corn than would otherwise be necessary, so that we can grow more cows. > The methane produced by cows is not going to be significantly more than the equivalent produced by the same amount of plant material left to rot/decompose. This is also not true, but even in a world where cows don't produce more methane, it's just inaccurate for people to look at the current feed production in America and to say that we'd be producing that much food if we weren't raising an outsized amount of cattle. Sure, cattle can be raised on otherwise unusable land. But that is just not the direction that factory farming in the US is going. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056871
sammalloy 6y ago
> That lesson came out of the discovery of Allan Savory a Rhodesian/Zimbabwean ecologist that desertification only accelerated once huge herds were culled in an assumption that the grazing was causing the desertification, rather than that they were part of the system. The only reason I came to this thread was to see if someone would pull the Allan Savory card, and here it is. There is no reputable, working scientist in the relevant field who cites Savory as a reliable source. > According to a 2016 study published by the University of Uppsala, the actual rate at which improved grazing management could contribute to carbon sequestration is seven times lower than the claims made by Savory. The study concludes that Holistic Management cannot reverse climate change. A study by the Food and Climate Research Network in 2017 has concluded that Savory's claims about carbon sequestration are "unrealistic" and very different from those issued by peer-reviewed studies.

ornornor 6y ago

> ruminants actually enrich the environment (assuming non-industrial practices) Wink wink. What’s the ratio of non industrially farmed beef vs industrially farmed beef anecdotes non withstanding?

mikepurvis 6y ago

Follow the foodchain, though— the "plant material" that industrially farmed cows are eating is almost entirely grown-for-purpose corn for which there are substantial inputs in terms of petroleum-based fertilizers. And even if there weren't, those same fields left fallow would be capturing the same atmospheric carbon for plant/tree growth and holding it for much longer than a crop which is being harvested every season. It's not like the cows are eating exclusively grass clippings which were just going to be left to rot otherwise.

ceph_ 6y ago

This post is disingenuous at best. Want to cite some credible sources that back it up? Methane is produced by decomposition in oxygen deprived anerobic environments. Like a cows gut or a tidal bog. Grass rotting in a field will not produce the same levels of methane as grass digested by cows. And that's not even touching on the rate at which it's released. Are you going to say burning the field is just as bad as letting it decompose because they both release CO2?

danShumway 6y ago

I've commented to the same effect in the past[0], but we grow food for animals. It's not like we have a giant pile of rotting soy/corn, so we might as well have some cattle eat it. We grow a lot more soy/corn than would otherwise be necessary, so that we can grow more cows. > The methane produced by cows is not going to be significantly more than the equivalent produced by the same amount of plant material left to rot/decompose. This is also not true, but even in a world where cows don't produce more methane, it's just inaccurate for people to look at the current feed production in America and to say that we'd be producing that much food if we weren't raising an outsized amount of cattle. Sure, cattle can be raised on otherwise unusable land. But that is just not the direction that factory farming in the US is going. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26056871

sammalloy 6y ago

> That lesson came out of the discovery of Allan Savory a Rhodesian/Zimbabwean ecologist that desertification only accelerated once huge herds were culled in an assumption that the grazing was causing the desertification, rather than that they were part of the system. The only reason I came to this thread was to see if someone would pull the Allan Savory card, and here it is. There is no reputable, working scientist in the relevant field who cites Savory as a reliable source. > According to a 2016 study published by the University of Uppsala, the actual rate at which improved grazing management could contribute to carbon sequestration is seven times lower than the claims made by Savory. The study concludes that Holistic Management cannot reverse climate change. A study by the Food and Climate Research Network in 2017 has concluded that Savory's claims about carbon sequestration are "unrealistic" and very different from those issued by peer-reviewed studies.