4 ms·

My point was simple that you can do that while still raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth of nutrients, and they can improve the ground the

by pard68 3y ago

My point was simple that you can do that while still raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth of nutrients, and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time.

myshpa 3y ago
> They taste great Sure, if you're ok with ignoring everything else. > have a wealth of nutrients But nothing that we couldn't get from plants. > and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time They can. But forest would do it too, and better. Climate-wise it's not a win. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"

by pard68 3y ago

My point was simple that you can do that while still raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth of nutrients, and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time.

myshpa 3y ago

> They taste great Sure, if you're ok with ignoring everything else. > have a wealth of nutrients But nothing that we couldn't get from plants. > and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time They can. But forest would do it too, and better. Climate-wise it's not a win. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"