3 ms·

I would argue carbon footprint (which is huge) or methane emissions.

by consp 4y ago

b112 4y ago
Both are only relevant if you grain feed, instead of allowing animals to graze on grass. For example, let's say we remove cattle from the rolling, rocky hills of Quebec. We let the land go fallow, back to nature. Ok, now endless deer, bison, moose, groundhogs, and endless other critters do a horrible thing. They eat, and they fart. When people complain about meat, and carbon, they are complaining about the worst part of it. Much of the world does not dump fertilizer on land, grow crop, and feed it to cattle. It is very unfair to lump this all together, especially in a thread about people taking extreme positions.
- s0rce 4y ago
  Is that representative, there are areas in California where grazing was eliminated and they are not overrun with other grazing animals and beautiful meadows and creeks have begun to recover.
- danielbln 4y ago
  According to the National Council for Animal Protection, over 99% of beef farmed for meat comes from cows that live in horrific factory farm environments. Does the remaining 1% matter all that much in the conversation?
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    Would you expect the National Council for Animal Protection to give you an unbiased figure? I struggle with the concept of feedlot farming being morally acceptable at all. However, I've been on a number of beef farms in the UK and it's just not representative of how British beef is raised.
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    does the national council for animal protection sound like they do independent research?
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    That number is probably true for the USA only. GP specifically said: > Much of the world does not dump fertilizer on land, grow crop, and feed it to cattle.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  > only relevant if you grain feed, instead of allowing animals to graze on grass. What's the percentage of grass fed vs grain? From a shallow search it seems like it's low single digits yet I see this argument come up a lot. Do you have different numbers perhaps?
- lm28469 4y ago
  > Both are only relevant if you grain feed, instead of allowing animals to graze on grass. Plot twist: the average US/EU diet can't be sustained on free range only meat/animal products. In the US grass fed beef represent 4% of beef sold, and that's with a very loose definition of "grass fed" https://agfundernews.com/grass-fed-beef-survey-story https://agfundernews.com/grass-fed-beef-survey-story

I would argue carbon footprint (which is huge) or methane emissions.

by consp 4y ago

I would argue carbon footprint (which is huge) or methane emissions.

b112 4y ago

Both are only relevant if you grain feed, instead of allowing animals to graze on grass. For example, let's say we remove cattle from the rolling, rocky hills of Quebec. We let the land go fallow, back to nature. Ok, now endless deer, bison, moose, groundhogs, and endless other critters do a horrible thing. They eat, and they fart. When people complain about meat, and carbon, they are complaining about the worst part of it. Much of the world does not dump fertilizer on land, grow crop, and feed it to cattle. It is very unfair to lump this all together, especially in a thread about people taking extreme positions.

s0rce 4y ago
Is that representative, there are areas in California where grazing was eliminated and they are not overrun with other grazing animals and beautiful meadows and creeks have begun to recover.
danielbln 4y ago
According to the National Council for Animal Protection, over 99% of beef farmed for meat comes from cows that live in horrific factory farm environments. Does the remaining 1% matter all that much in the conversation?
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  Would you expect the National Council for Animal Protection to give you an unbiased figure? I struggle with the concept of feedlot farming being morally acceptable at all. However, I've been on a number of beef farms in the UK and it's just not representative of how British beef is raised.
- twobitshifter 4y ago
  does the national council for animal protection sound like they do independent research?
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  That number is probably true for the USA only. GP specifically said: > Much of the world does not dump fertilizer on land, grow crop, and feed it to cattle.
barbazoo 4y ago
> only relevant if you grain feed, instead of allowing animals to graze on grass. What's the percentage of grass fed vs grain? From a shallow search it seems like it's low single digits yet I see this argument come up a lot. Do you have different numbers perhaps?
lm28469 4y ago
> Both are only relevant if you grain feed, instead of allowing animals to graze on grass. Plot twist: the average US/EU diet can't be sustained on free range only meat/animal products. In the US grass fed beef represent 4% of beef sold, and that's with a very loose definition of "grass fed" https://agfundernews.com/grass-fed-beef-survey-story https://agfundernews.com/grass-fed-beef-survey-story