3 ms·
It is my understanding that land use (eg cutting down rain forest, draining wetlands) for pasture and soy are a big contributor to the carbon footprint of meat.
by adrianN 1y ago
It is my understanding that land use (eg cutting down rain forest, draining wetlands) for pasture and soy are a big contributor to the carbon footprint of meat.
- dijit 1y agoCould be true, in the countries I am most faniliar with (UK, Sweden) there’s no rainforest and a good chunk of the land used for rearing cattle couldn’t be used for farming Soy.
- adrianN 1y agoWhere does the feed come from? What other uses could the land have? Here in Germany drained wetlands are a huge contributor to GHG emissions.
- dijit 1y agoLargely grass (and oil based feed, as mentioned)
- swores 1y agoThere is rainforest in the UK... it's just temperate rainforest, not tropical. (And it is as under threat as tropical - https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/habitats/temperate-rainforest/ https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/ha... )
- cnity 1y agoThe cattle doesn't have to _be_ on the same wasted land that is used to feed it. Soy is imported from other countries to feed cattle in the UK (around 2M tons of soy per year[0]). It is a common and convenient misconception that raising cattle is not bad for the environment because it is raised on non-arable land -- the cattle still gets fed imported soy. 0: https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Sustainable-Soya-baseline-report-Oct-2018.pdf https://www.efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Su...
- dijit 1y agoBut now we're returning to the assumption that everything thats fit for cows is fit for human edible crops. Cows aren't often eating the "human grade" crops, to my understanding. I'm not making an argument that we shouldn't scale back cattle-rearing, if anything my personal preference would be to eliminate all oil-based feed and see how sustainable we can make things; I just think we've got a real convenient scapegoat here when the largest polluter is definitely car dependence as it's adding carbon to the carbon cycle.
- peterashford 1y agoCows arent a scapegoat, they're just a significant part of the puzzle. It's nuts to think only co2 or only methane is the issue. They're both issues
- dijit 1y agoBut they exist in a closed system. They don't emit CO2 or Methane in any way that can run out of control unless we pour carbon into the system externally (by digging up oil and feeding it to them for example, or transporting them using cars that run on fossil fuels, or heating them with fossil fuels). They are a scapegoat, because they can't by themselves emit anything that can't be captured and returned and reused by cattle for essentially perpetuity, yet we as humans are doing things that are not sustainable and contribute to tipping the scales. Thanks for flagging me btw.
- postingawayonhn 1y agoWhere land is converted there can be an increase. But for an existing farm with stable herd numbers the emission produced around (Methane > Carbon Dioxide > Grass > Methane > etc.).
- adrianN 1y agoWhen you drain wetlands they emit GHGs essentially forever.
- federiconafria 1y agoWhat's "funny" is that rain forest land being destroyed for pastures has terrible yield. We would be better off paying the people using them to keep the forest intact.
- postepowanieadm 1y agoThere's industrial beef and there's grass fed beef. Grass feed one preserves pastures which are amazing and rich ecosystems, much more valuable than soya monocultures.
- soco 1y agoNow what is the proportion of grass fed beef from the total beef? Does it move the needle? Here, for the USA it's just about 1% (one percent, yes) according to https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-grass-fed-beef https://extension.sdstate.edu/grass-fed-beef-market-share-gr...