Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chris L.'s avatar

This is always going to be a difficult thing to pin down because it depends on how you draw your system boundaries and what the "functional unit" comparison is to do a proper life cycle assessment. Is it GHG emissions per calorie of human food produced? Is it GHG emissions per acre of ranch/farm land? How do you account for animal feed co-products (the example is corn grown to produce both ethanol and distillers grains), and if not animal feed what else is that acre used for? Do farmers still plant corn, or perhaps an alternate crop that requires less fertilizer and irrigation? What if we switched from cattle to bison and restored native grassland? Etc. etc. Competing business interests and government subsidies aside, even those trying to find fair answers face myriad tough decisions in even properly defining the problem.

Expand full comment
Hugh Wallace's avatar

One major thing missed in this article & in most defending or attacking beef (in particular) is that the production of methane - which happens in a cow's stomach - is going to happen on the ground anyway. Any plant matter that decays over winter (which is the majority of plants on grasslands & in forests where trees drop their leaves to the ground) will be decomposed by bacteria in the soil which will result in the production of methane. In reality, a cow (or any other herbivore) eating said plant matter will probably reduce the overall methane 'emissions' from a given area of land as much of the carbon is now locked up in the flesh of the animal.

The other thing that could reduce methane 'emissions' from an area of land is using it to grow a crop plant using pesticides to kill off the soil bacteria (no bacteria, no methane) & complete removal of all decomposable matter to leave bare soil. Of course then you need artificial fertilisers & you can only hope that rain water doesn't wash away all the top soil...

Everyone knows that a tree (or any plant) is a net carbon sink in that as it grows it removes carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. We also know that in doing so the tree releases oxygen into the atmosphere. But trees release CO2 as well so maybe we should chop them all down? No, we understand that remove more carbon than they release, hence they are a net sink. Cows (all herbivores) are much the same. A large proportion of a cow is carbon & all that carbon came from a plant which obtained all its carbon from the atmosphere. A cow is walking carbon sink but because it 'emits' a tiny, tiny amount of carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of methane we say they are destroying the planet. Make it make sense...

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts