4 ms·

>This data is also being based on comparing conventional produce raising vice feedlot style farming Given that 96%[5] of beef sold in the US is grain fed, it s

>This data is also being based on comparing conventional produce raising vice feedlot style farming Given that 96%[5] of beef sold in the US is grain fed, it seems as if it would make sense to base the data on that. Not only is it the norm, but it's apparently the best case scenario in terms of emissions. If you're trying to make an argument for beef being less emission intensive, you want to use CAFO numbers as grass fed numbers are worse. According to these studies, grain fed cattle are slaughtered at 14 - 22 months of age, while grass fed cows are kept alive longer because they gain weight more slowly, leading them to be slaughtered at 20 - 26 months of age.[4] Their extended lifespans lead to greater emissions even if they were to emit the same amount of CO2 + methane per day, but a diet of grass itself leads to higher methane emissions than grain, resulting in overall methane emissions being about 43% higher for grass-fed beef.[1] Methane traps about 80 times more heat than CO2 over the first 20 years, before it degrades into CO2 and then overall ends up trapping about 25 times more over the first 100 years.[2] Now, some of that may be offset by by soil carbon sequestration in the grass fed beef, but according to the Oxford study below - “This report finds that better management of grass-fed livestock, while worthwhile in and of itself, does not offer a significant solution to climate change as only under very specific conditions can they help sequester carbon. This sequestering of carbon is even then small, time-limited, reversible and substantially outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions these grazing animals generate.”[3] Finally, grass fed beef not only grow more slowly but they end up at a lower final weight when they’re slaughtered, ~1100 lbs vs ~1300 lbs. After they’re butchered, this leaves 638 lbs vs 832 lbs of beef per animal. This means that to meet the same amount of demand, we’d require increasing the total number of cattle raised by about 30%, further increasing emissions and overall environmental impacts.[4] Further - “The required 30% increase in the overall cattle population must be accompanied by large increases in the productivity of existing pastures, on the order of 40%–370%, to avoid clearing additional native vegetation or competition with the human food supply.”[1] [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 [2] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-ca... [3] https://tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf https://tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/fcrn_gn... [4] https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/carbon-footprint-comparison-between-grass-and-grain-finished-beef.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/carbon-footprint-c... [4] https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/carbon-footprint-comparison-between-grass-and-grain-finished-beef.html https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/carbon-footprint-c... [5]https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-grass-fed-beef#:~:text=About%204%25%20of%20U.S.%20beef,value%20of%20roughly%20%244%20billion https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-gr....

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
If I took your logic and extended it, that means you'd would be against the gigantic bison herds that existed in early American history (50-100M animals), which are within the size ranges of the complete American cattle herds. Given other large sources of animal protein, you'd likely be against vibrant fish, & oceanic mammal populations toon. You're against animal husbandry and animal protein sources because they produce methane. Whether or not it is tied to fossil fuel usage and pollution. > while grass fed cows wrong. The industry raises steers. Neutered male cattle. > Further - “The required 30% increase in the overall cattle population must be accompanied by large increases in the productivity of existing pastures, on the order of 40%–370%, to avoid clearing additional native vegetation or competition with the human food supply. That is utter idiocy. The question is always which thing a farmer is going to raise. Given that the US has supported wild animal populations of equivalent large cattle, which thing to grow is always a question. However, it was done previously without farming. > Given that 96%[5] of beef sold in the US is grain fed, it seems as if it would make sense to base the data on that. No. That is highly regionalized. You have to ask instead what is consumed, and exported. Do you know how much of that is destined for other markets? Many markets are selling >50% grass fed now, and the grass-fed farms have incredible demand with backlogs on animals now.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  >If I took your logic and extended it, that means you'd would be against the gigantic bison herds that existed in early American history (50-100M animals), which are within the size ranges of the complete American cattle herds. The bison talking point has already been addressed elsewhere on this post, but copying and pasting the other commenter's info - > ~60,000,000 Bison in North America in 1600 [1] > 94,400,000 cattle and calves in USA in 2017. [2] Which represents an increase of 50%. Not to mention that if we look at global cattle numbers, those have exploded to 1,000,967,000 Livestock Cattle worldwide in 2021, far above historical numbers.[3] In fact, cattle make up more of the biomass on Earth than any other species, at 650 million tonnes.[4] So yeah, the current state of the world does not compare in any way to the 1600s and the 60 million bison in NA. >Given other large sources of animal protein, you'd likely be against vibrant fish, & oceanic mammal populations toon. Huh? What does this have to do with atmospheric methane and CO2? >wrong. The industry raises steers. Neutered male cattle. This seems like a non-sequitor, how is this relevant to the discussion? >Given that the US has supported wild animal populations of equivalent large cattle, This is false, and especially misleading when taking a global view. Please feel free to show me sources that contradict the ones I've provided. >That is utter idiocy. The question is always which thing a farmer is going to raise.[...] which thing to grow is always a question. However, it was done previously without farming. Sorry, how is this a response to the required increase in cattle population if we were to transition to 100% grass-fed beef, and the required increase in pasture productivity or expansion of pasture? >No. I've provided a source that says yes. Do you have a source saying that more than 4% of beef sold in the US is grass-fed? > Many markets are selling >50% grass fed now, and the grass-fed farms have incredible demand with backlogs on animals now. Please define "many" and quantify the total impact of their grass-fed sales on total sales in the US. The source I've provided shows that to be 4%. Further, again, grass-fed beef is actually worse for the climate as I've demonstrated by citing a number of sources, so it's not like this is a good argument to pursue if your goal is to try to rationalize beef consumption as being good for the climate. [1]https://allaboutbison.com/bison-in-history/bison-timeline/ https://allaboutbison.com/bison-in-history/bison-timeline/ [2]https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/downloads/Demographics2017.pdf https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/downloads/Dem... [3]https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-1960-2014-130-111523 https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-1960-2014... [4]https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/what-animal-collectively-makes-up-the-largest-biomass-on-earth/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/what-animal-collectively...

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

If I took your logic and extended it, that means you'd would be against the gigantic bison herds that existed in early American history (50-100M animals), which are within the size ranges of the complete American cattle herds. Given other large sources of animal protein, you'd likely be against vibrant fish, & oceanic mammal populations toon. You're against animal husbandry and animal protein sources because they produce methane. Whether or not it is tied to fossil fuel usage and pollution. > while grass fed cows wrong. The industry raises steers. Neutered male cattle. > Further - “The required 30% increase in the overall cattle population must be accompanied by large increases in the productivity of existing pastures, on the order of 40%–370%, to avoid clearing additional native vegetation or competition with the human food supply. That is utter idiocy. The question is always which thing a farmer is going to raise. Given that the US has supported wild animal populations of equivalent large cattle, which thing to grow is always a question. However, it was done previously without farming. > Given that 96%[5] of beef sold in the US is grain fed, it seems as if it would make sense to base the data on that. No. That is highly regionalized. You have to ask instead what is consumed, and exported. Do you know how much of that is destined for other markets? Many markets are selling >50% grass fed now, and the grass-fed farms have incredible demand with backlogs on animals now.

virgildotcodes 4y ago
>If I took your logic and extended it, that means you'd would be against the gigantic bison herds that existed in early American history (50-100M animals), which are within the size ranges of the complete American cattle herds. The bison talking point has already been addressed elsewhere on this post, but copying and pasting the other commenter's info - > ~60,000,000 Bison in North America in 1600 [1] > 94,400,000 cattle and calves in USA in 2017. [2] Which represents an increase of 50%. Not to mention that if we look at global cattle numbers, those have exploded to 1,000,967,000 Livestock Cattle worldwide in 2021, far above historical numbers.[3] In fact, cattle make up more of the biomass on Earth than any other species, at 650 million tonnes.[4] So yeah, the current state of the world does not compare in any way to the 1600s and the 60 million bison in NA. >Given other large sources of animal protein, you'd likely be against vibrant fish, & oceanic mammal populations toon. Huh? What does this have to do with atmospheric methane and CO2? >wrong. The industry raises steers. Neutered male cattle. This seems like a non-sequitor, how is this relevant to the discussion? >Given that the US has supported wild animal populations of equivalent large cattle, This is false, and especially misleading when taking a global view. Please feel free to show me sources that contradict the ones I've provided. >That is utter idiocy. The question is always which thing a farmer is going to raise.[...] which thing to grow is always a question. However, it was done previously without farming. Sorry, how is this a response to the required increase in cattle population if we were to transition to 100% grass-fed beef, and the required increase in pasture productivity or expansion of pasture? >No. I've provided a source that says yes. Do you have a source saying that more than 4% of beef sold in the US is grass-fed? > Many markets are selling >50% grass fed now, and the grass-fed farms have incredible demand with backlogs on animals now. Please define "many" and quantify the total impact of their grass-fed sales on total sales in the US. The source I've provided shows that to be 4%. Further, again, grass-fed beef is actually worse for the climate as I've demonstrated by citing a number of sources, so it's not like this is a good argument to pursue if your goal is to try to rationalize beef consumption as being good for the climate. [1]https://allaboutbison.com/bison-in-history/bison-timeline/ https://allaboutbison.com/bison-in-history/bison-timeline/ [2]https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/downloads/Demographics2017.pdf https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/downloads/Dem... [3]https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-1960-2014-130-111523 https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-1960-2014... [4]https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/what-animal-collectively-makes-up-the-largest-biomass-on-earth/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/what-animal-collectively...