3 ms·
> cattle has and always been a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle Could that be ignoring the the sheer number of cattle used in industrial beef production?
by barbazoo 4y ago
> cattle has and always been a part of the atmospheric carbon cycle
Could that be ignoring the the sheer number of cattle used in industrial beef production?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-pop...
- cassianoleal 4y agoAssuming GP is correct, why would the number of cattle make much of a difference? If the carbon emitted by them was previously removed from the same atmosphere that's receiving them, isn't this a well balanced system where no new carbon reaches the atmosphere?
- glutamate 4y agoPlants don't absorb methane emissions.
- barbazoo 4y agoTrue, no new carbon is added to the atmosphere. Methane as a GHG is worse for the environment though afaik.
- cassianoleal 4y agoI see. So is the problem with the volume of cattle that there's a lot more methane built-up before it's able to break down? Are there good numbers on that? I believe so far everything I've read adds up everything and muddies the water a bit.