3 ms·

>> The only real net emissions in the process of creating beef are the fossil fuels burned in the process, from transportation I think you are drastically over

by wffurr 6y ago

>> The only real net emissions in the process of creating beef are the fossil fuels burned in the process, from transportation I think you are drastically oversimplifying the carbon impact of modern agriculture. Artificial fertilizer production, irrigation, mechanized farm equipment all substantially contribute to CO2 emissions and other serious environmental impacts. Edit: Reading the EPA report, the sources I mentioned aren't even in the top 3: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions,by%2012%20percent%20since%201990 https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis.... Soil management practices (aka tilling) causing N2O release, digestive methane from cattle, methane, and methane and N2O from manure handling. Fertilizer was lumped in with crop residue burning and rice cultivation in 4th place. Two of the top three are directly related to animal husbandry, and the rest are heavily impacted by the vast amount of land used to grow feed for cattle in feedlots instead of directly feeding people.

bronzeage 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but that agricultural impact happens for vegetarian food as well? And lab grown meat also requires the same agricultural costs, there doesn't exist some magic chemistry that creates food from raw materials without agriculture.
- wffurr 6y ago
  I updated my post with some details, but to that point directly it is far, far more efficient to feed people rather than feeding animals to feed people. The vast majority of cattle are raised in feedlots and fed crops from agriculture.
  - hispanic 6y ago
    Grains make up 10–13 percent of the diet for cattle, globally. The rest is composed of grass, leaves, and "crop residue" such as cornstalks. Source: Sacred Cow by Rodgers
bronzeage 6y ago
Again you're using sham accounting. Where did that methane come from? From the food. It came into the food from the air. There are again no net emissions. Just like a company requires expenditures to generate revenue. This is misleading. That carbon was borrowed from the air and then returned. Net emission zero. You only increase carbon in the air when you take carbon from elsewhere and put it in the air. Otherwise it's a cycle with net flow zero.
- wffurr 6y ago
  I am pretty sure it's not methane in, methane out. There's a digestive process and bacteria involved that produce methane from sugars and cellulose. So CO2 in via plants, methane (a much more potent greenhouse has) out. I think you need to research this "sham accounting" idea, maybe do some studies, collect some data, publish in a peer reviewed journal, before you go about spouting it as gospel.

by wffurr 6y ago

bronzeage 6y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but that agricultural impact happens for vegetarian food as well? And lab grown meat also requires the same agricultural costs, there doesn't exist some magic chemistry that creates food from raw materials without agriculture.

wffurr 6y ago
I updated my post with some details, but to that point directly it is far, far more efficient to feed people rather than feeding animals to feed people. The vast majority of cattle are raised in feedlots and fed crops from agriculture.
- hispanic 6y ago
  Grains make up 10–13 percent of the diet for cattle, globally. The rest is composed of grass, leaves, and "crop residue" such as cornstalks. Source: Sacred Cow by Rodgers

bronzeage 6y ago

Again you're using sham accounting. Where did that methane come from? From the food. It came into the food from the air. There are again no net emissions. Just like a company requires expenditures to generate revenue. This is misleading. That carbon was borrowed from the air and then returned. Net emission zero. You only increase carbon in the air when you take carbon from elsewhere and put it in the air. Otherwise it's a cycle with net flow zero.

wffurr 6y ago
I am pretty sure it's not methane in, methane out. There's a digestive process and bacteria involved that produce methane from sugars and cellulose. So CO2 in via plants, methane (a much more potent greenhouse has) out. I think you need to research this "sham accounting" idea, maybe do some studies, collect some data, publish in a peer reviewed journal, before you go about spouting it as gospel.