Subj : Why cutting back on cow c
To   : All
From : Mike Powell
Date : Mon Nov 06 2023 11:09:00

>Research shows that even a modest skew away from meat-based diets can shrink
>an individuals carbon footprint as much as 75 percent . As it turns out,
>however, untangling cows from the climate equation is enormously
>complicatedespecially in the United States, where the industry, worth $275
>billion annually, boasts the worlds fourth largest cattle population and is
>its top beef and dairy producer . Achieving a cheeseburger-free America faces
>formidable challenges. Beyond overcoming cultural shiftsthe countrys
>per-capita consumption of mozzarella, to name one example, averages one pound
>a month lies the challenge of meeting nutritional demands and rebalancing the
>intricacies of an agricultural, food, and industrial economy inextricably
>linked to livestock farming.

This article is interesting, but what they don't mention is that achieving
a "cheeseburger-free America" doesn't completely curtail our raising of
livestock.  China owns one of our largest meat producers, and largest pork
producer, in the form of Smithfield.  Not only do they own the processing
plants, they also own the company farmland.

If we quit eating meat, Smithfield will continue farming livestock (and if
they are smart, expand their footprint by buying up the unused-by-us farms)
to feed China's population.

I cannot find any place in the article where they mention the ownership of
US livestock farms by China, or any other foreign nations.  I used to work
for a packing plant that was owned by a French-Belgian company, but we
didn't own our own farms, although they might have through other US
holdings.

>However, if those herds were to magically disappear, it wouldnt eliminate the
>problem entirely. According to a peer-reviewed study , an animal-free
>agricultural system would shave just 2.6 percent off the countrys total
>greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, any reduction would be noteworthy given
>the nations outsized role in climate changethat drop would be equivalent to
>three times Portugals annual emissions though that benefit would come with
>drawbacks.

So although the livestock industry produces a "huge" amount of greenhouse
gas, getting rid of it only eliminates 2.6% of said gasses.  I wonder how
much money the government is "investing" in all of these studies in order
to eliminate 2.6% of greenhouse gases.

>With no livestock to feed, the acreage now used to grow silage and hay could
>be replaced with food crops. Yet because higher value fruits and vegetables
>require quality soil, specific climate conditions, and ample water
>infrastructure, most of that land would be limited to growing calorie-heavy,
>hardy broad acre crops such as corn and soybeansa system change that would
>add its own climate impacts.

I don't know how they do it, but out west they can raise livestock in near
desert conditions... places where these plants won't grown without heavy
irrigation and soil manipulation.  West Texas and New Mexico are full of
cattle ranches, and even Arizona and Southern California have them.

>In fact, agricultures current emissions are a result of a certain balance
>between crops and livestock, said Robin White, a professor of animal and
>poultry science at Virginia Tech and the lead author of the research. Crops
>need fertilizer, a resource often provided by livestock, and producing
>synthetic versions is an energy-intensive process that typically requires
>fossil fuels and emits methane. Cattle also help keep agricultural
>byproducts from fruit peels and pulp to almond hulls and spent brewery
>grains out of landfills, reducing the carbon output of crop waste by 60
>percent .

Sounds like the "meatless" idea would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Thanks to inflation, substituting veggies for meat is not as economically
thrifty as it was just a few years ago.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

.