It’s hard to put it into words but. How come methane produced from livestock is bad for the environment when other animals that produce the same gasses have existed naturally for millions of years
In: 0
The other commenters said it already, but you’re probably still underestimating the sheer amount of cattle humanity keeps.
Only **4%** of the world’s mammal biomass is actually wild animals. Humans make up 33%, and domesticated livestock makes up the rest.
The other commenters said it already, but you’re probably still underestimating the sheer amount of cattle humanity keeps.
Only **4%** of the world’s mammal biomass is actually wild animals. Humans make up 33%, and domesticated livestock makes up the rest.
Wild animals and particularly wild mammals make up only a tiny fraction of the biomass of animals on Earth.
Wild animals and particularly wild mammals make up only a tiny fraction of the biomass of animals on Earth.
Wild animals and particularly wild mammals make up only a tiny fraction of the biomass of animals on Earth.
Don’t have it on hand, but there’s a documentary vid from a researcher that debunks all the supposed problems with cattle. In terms of the two major arguments that get used against livestock:
– (livestock uses land that we could grow crops on) No, that land is not good for crops. it might be the soil, it might be the sublight, it might be the weather, but one way or another that land can only really grow grass. Ergo, only livestock farming is viable.
– (methane output) CO2/oil is being mined from deposits that were previously sequestered underground. Methane has a short lifecycle of 10 years in atmosphere. It breaks down and gets recycled. Livestock are not contributing methane, they’re just part of a methane equivalent of the water cycle. The methane from livestock originally came from the atmosphere, not from underground deposits.
The documentary also does a quick breakdown of crop farming and how crops are actually contributing more greenhouse in some cases. For example, we don’t eat corn husks/stalks which make up 90% of the crop, but they have to be accounted for in greenhouse output. However, ruminants (ie, livestock) can eat those scraps. In a way, crop farming can only claim to be low on greenhouse because a lot of their greenhouse output gets passed on to livestock farming instead. And yeah. when you hear that a large anount of crops are being fed to livestock, that number is actually primarily the husks and scraps we don’t eat to begin with.
Don’t have it on hand, but there’s a documentary vid from a researcher that debunks all the supposed problems with cattle. In terms of the two major arguments that get used against livestock:
– (livestock uses land that we could grow crops on) No, that land is not good for crops. it might be the soil, it might be the sublight, it might be the weather, but one way or another that land can only really grow grass. Ergo, only livestock farming is viable.
– (methane output) CO2/oil is being mined from deposits that were previously sequestered underground. Methane has a short lifecycle of 10 years in atmosphere. It breaks down and gets recycled. Livestock are not contributing methane, they’re just part of a methane equivalent of the water cycle. The methane from livestock originally came from the atmosphere, not from underground deposits.
The documentary also does a quick breakdown of crop farming and how crops are actually contributing more greenhouse in some cases. For example, we don’t eat corn husks/stalks which make up 90% of the crop, but they have to be accounted for in greenhouse output. However, ruminants (ie, livestock) can eat those scraps. In a way, crop farming can only claim to be low on greenhouse because a lot of their greenhouse output gets passed on to livestock farming instead. And yeah. when you hear that a large anount of crops are being fed to livestock, that number is actually primarily the husks and scraps we don’t eat to begin with.
Don’t have it on hand, but there’s a documentary vid from a researcher that debunks all the supposed problems with cattle. In terms of the two major arguments that get used against livestock:
– (livestock uses land that we could grow crops on) No, that land is not good for crops. it might be the soil, it might be the sublight, it might be the weather, but one way or another that land can only really grow grass. Ergo, only livestock farming is viable.
– (methane output) CO2/oil is being mined from deposits that were previously sequestered underground. Methane has a short lifecycle of 10 years in atmosphere. It breaks down and gets recycled. Livestock are not contributing methane, they’re just part of a methane equivalent of the water cycle. The methane from livestock originally came from the atmosphere, not from underground deposits.
The documentary also does a quick breakdown of crop farming and how crops are actually contributing more greenhouse in some cases. For example, we don’t eat corn husks/stalks which make up 90% of the crop, but they have to be accounted for in greenhouse output. However, ruminants (ie, livestock) can eat those scraps. In a way, crop farming can only claim to be low on greenhouse because a lot of their greenhouse output gets passed on to livestock farming instead. And yeah. when you hear that a large anount of crops are being fed to livestock, that number is actually primarily the husks and scraps we don’t eat to begin with.
Latest Answers