Hacker News Reader

Comment by Faelon | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately this pithy comment is inconsistent with the science. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Most of the emissions from beef comes from negative land-use change, that is the loss of carbon-sequestering life that existed in the land for both the cows and the tons of agricultural food they eat, and methane, which is released directly to our atmosphere and is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Fortunately, if we were to phase out cattle, this methane has a half-life much shorter than CO2 and would provide important early gains in restabilizing our climate.

View on HN

Cos can be grass fed. Most of the beef I have ever eaten is predominantly grass fed.

In many places cows are a natural part of the ecosystem. So much so that in rewilding parts of Scotland they have ended up releasing cattle into the wild.

Its perfectly possible for grass plus grazing animals to be carbon sink, and a provide a rich ecosystem.

cows are a natural part of the ecosystem

Sure large herbivores were and still are part of many ecosystems.

But around where I live the majority of the grass for the grass-fed cows doesn't come from anything remotely resembling a rich ecosystem. The grass is literally 'grass': maybe one or 2 types of grass, similar amount of herbs, funghi. Hardly any insects except for flies attracted to manure. These used to be ecosystems with > 20 species of grassses and herbs per square meter.

And these are even relatively small farms; trying to upscale it beyond that to make it possible for millions of humans to eat meat multiple times a week, it won't get any better. If you're putting large amounts of cows in a much much smaller habitat then what they'd naturally use, then it's not the same ecosystem anymore.

Its perfectly possible for grass plus grazing animals to be carbon sink, and a provide a rich ecosystem.

tldr; yes, but only if you want to feed a couple of people from it.

Do grass fed cows produce less methane than corn/grain fed cows

More, per the below lifecycle assesment study: "There was little variability between production scenarios except for the grassfed, where the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 37% higher due to a longer finishing time and lower finishing weight"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24216416/

It goes on to say:

"However, reductions to GHG emissions (15-24%) were realized when soil organic carbon accrual was considered"

That link shows that twice as many emissions are attributed to farm stage vs land use change. And fta: "Farm-stage emissions include processes such as the application of fertilizers and the production of methane in the stomachs of cattle."

So not sure there is much for me to respond to you given that.

They always start with a false equivalency anyway, comparing stuff like cane sugar with cow meat, that's just extra dumb.

I don't have proper calculation, but when you add up all the processing and extra requirement to grow high protein crops, you are actually not very far from meat cost.

Which makes sense because if meat was so inefficient, then vegetal protein replacement should be much cheaper, but they are not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com