Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Grass fed cattle produces more methane than grain fed thoug (and methane is a much worse greenhouse gas).

But it does (possibly) help sequesters carbon.

The truth is that it's hard to tell which is better, but neither is great environmentally.

it’s hard to say whether grass-fed or grain-fed beef is better for the Earth – in part because they’re both pretty bad.

“No matter how you slice it,” he wrote, “eating beef will never be the greenest thing you do in a day.”

He cites an estimate by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan that producing 2.2 pounds of beef emits more greenhouse gases than driving 155 miles.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s study of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with consumption in Oregon found red meat and dairy products have the highest carbon footprint of all the foods Oregonians eat.[1]

(Needless to say the Cattlemen’s Association dispute these, and claim it only (?) produces 2.8% of greenhouse gases in the US).

[1] https://www.opb.org/news/blog/ecotrope/which-is-greener-gras...



Methane is short lived in the atmosphere. Also, North America historically had about 300 million ruminants, before human intervention: bison.

The other issue is we’re basically running out of topsoil. Modern agriculture is an extractive process, and the result is we have maybe 60 years left until the topsoil is gone and we can’t grow any more crops.


Indeed, methane is shorter lived than CO2 on the atmosphere. Taking that into account:

The 20-year global warming potential of methane is 84.[5][6] That is, over a 20-year period, it traps 84 times more heat per mass unit than carbon dioxide (CO2) and 32 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: