>>16167426Everything on this planet is 'carbon neutral' as long as it does not involve moving carbon into space, carbon raining down from space, fission or fusion.But that is completely besides the point you're probably trying to make.Cows themselves are carbon neutral, not greenhouse gas neutral and (modern industrialized) livestock management is neither.
>>16167453They are GHG neutral as well, they just happen to make the carbon more potent for a short time, but that is offset by cows being a carbon sink. Reducing red meat and dairy consumption won't slow global warming.
>>16167426This >>16167453 The cow may be carbon neutral, but their feed, their artificial abundance, their route to market, and their economy are all dependent upon fossil fuels which add carbon that had been sequestered for millions of years to the carbon cycle of the environment, and it the worst possible way, by turning it into carbon gases.
>>16167457Cows are not a carbon sink. How would they, please explain how cows would remove carbon from circulation.At the current rate and intensity a reduction in consumption of meat and dairy would definately reduce antrophogenic GHG emissions and thus slow global warming.
>>16167457Cows are not a carbon sink. You eat them, not bury them in the ground, and you do not shit out oil after eating them. Sink and source are grifter math, in that the boundary changes whether there is a sink or a source present.
>>16167426test
>>16167468OP is probably thebone or one of severa troll(s) also responsible for creation or much of the participation in the recent few threads that sought to perpetuate claims like this. The thread usually develops in the same fashion where the livestock fanbois won't stop presenting mere claims matter of factly and without providing argument, reasoning or source, constantly moving the goalpost, cherry picking, making blatantly false claims, derailing the argument or presenting textbook fallacies.There's no use trying to argue with a person that is only out to receive unfounded confirmation.
>>16167462Cows in my country are grazed on pasture for their whole lives except for the last few weeks of life when they are "finished" on a feedstock diet.Cattle feedstock has a high proportion of food waste and crop residue that is not otherwise edible - it would simply rot and decay if not eaten by anything, releasing its carbon to the atmosphere. Instead we can upcycle this waste product into food.Emissions associated with logistics apply equally to plant foods, which are often harvested by ICE vehicles and rely on the same ICE vehicles as animal foods to get to consumers.>artificial abundanceNot really. They've simply displaced wild ruminants like bison/buffalo.Not to mention that cattle are important for land management. Arable land that is left fallow for a season is often planted with nitrogen fixers like clover to improve the soil for the next crop. Cattle can graze the clover that is otherwise inedible, as well as fertilising and tilling the land with their droppings and hooves respectively.
Livestock can be "carbon neutral" or even "carbon positive" depending on the specific system employed but the problem is that the whole carbon nonsense is a gigantic tax extracting psyop.One that I used to believe in but when you begin to examine the foundational tenets it all collapses.Actual environmental pollution of toxic compounds and resource over extraction are far more real problems that get sidelined for this nonsensical furore over co2
>>16167486Thanks. I am aware of the botnet posts, but sometimes post anyway just as a way of warming up before I go back to writing my book. Most times I write up a response and do not even post it.
>>16167497What does nationalism have to do with it ?Can you show there is no opportunity cost associated with what youre describing ?You even started contradicting yourself now. You will continue to claim that the same land could not be used for any other purpose, the land use change did not contribute to anything GHG related while at the same time maintaining bovines had some magical property that microorganisms on their own do not have which enables them to somehow extend the nutrients available to a system and thus improving the land.And so on.Get a life scotish bro and maybe think instead of seaching confirmation because it's comfortable in a self serving manner.You have also already moved the goalpost. Your baity OP claimed that a reduction in animal protein consumption would not lead to a reduction of GHG emissions. You then cherry picked very specific circumstances which you probably understand make up a minor fraction of the market for animal protein.
>>16167497Because your cows eat grass from areas that do not support agriculture, therefore all cows eat grass from areas that do not support agriculture. Because plant based diets produce carbon emissions, therefore animal based diet's production produces the same quantity of emissions. That about right?>>16167500>>16167502See? I only posted this because I came back here to answer you. I could not really care about this op troll russian bot and their lies, but sometimes it is just good practice to out the grifters.
>>16167457Retard take.
>>16167513Why did you reply to me >>16167500 what point were you trying to make?
>>16167465Cows are big.When cows die we bury them.>Leftists seriously think like this
>>16167457>>16167426You sound like the antivaxxer schizos during COVID trying to rationalize why they shouldn't have to get vaccinated by citing crazy, retarded theories about vaccine microchips and the Bill Gates global depopulation agenda. If you enjoy being fat and lazy and polluting the environment, then sure red meat is one of the best ways to do it - and I realize most polschizos actually view destroying the environment and being a lazy fatass as a good thing, but most people would prefer to be healthy and preserve nature. If you actually want to keep yourself and the environment healthy, then the science is pretty clear. Red meat is terrible for your body and terrible for the environment. It's not normal or natural, but the price of meat has become so cheap these days that people don't even give a second thought to eating a steak or hamburger literally everyday. As usual in America, the defender and upholders of "freedom" display a startling lack of concern for the well being of themselves, other humans, and the planet as a whole.
>>16167547Not even sure what your post is meant to say. Are you implying that the urial of a carcass (not the reality of industrial livestock management btw.) would lead to sequesterization of the carbon bound within ? In that case I recommend thinking.Are you further implying I am 'a leftist (sic)' ?
always worth remembering that insane people like this post here and say all this with no hint of irony, they even attempt to belittle to make themselves feel better>16167554>You sound like the antivaxxer schizos during COVID trying to rationalize why they shouldn't have to get vaccinated by citing crazy, retarded theories about vaccine microchips and the Bill Gates global depopulation agenda.
>>16167509>What does nationalism have to do with it ?The point is that it's useless to talk about a global average of cattle rearing practises. Some nations have extremely fuel + crop intensive practises, some have much more holistic ones which allocate otherwise useless products. It's useful to make a distinction between such practises. Bovines reared on Scottish highlands don't have an equal opportunity cost to bovines reared on land derived from clear-cutting the Amazon rainforest. Treating the two as identical makes no sense.> Your baity OP claimed that a reduction in animal protein consumption would not lead to a reduction of GHG emissions. I'm not the OP>Can you show there is no opportunity cost associated with what youre describing ?Consider the opportunity cost of "how to dispose of the billions of tonnes of crop residue and other inedible plant byproducts produced annually around the world". How are you disposing of them if they aren't used as animal feedstock? What becomes of the energy invested into & production of those inedible byproducts? Many farmers with orchards & livestock graze the livestock in the orchards at the start of the season when the trees are still bare of leaves and grass and other weeds begin to grow. Without livestock, there is an "opportunity cost" of how to control the growth of undesirable plants on the ground. Selective herbicides or time-consuming or energy-consuming labour to remove weeds etc, possibly with ICE vehicles, but no additional output of food calories.>You then cherry picked very specific circumstances which you probably understand make up a minor fraction of the market for animal protein.The UK is basically self-sufficient for beef, with imports from Republic of Ireland reflecting preferences for certain cuts. Of domestic beef cattle (not dairy) are in England and 400,000 in Scotland. With only 10% of the population of England, this means that Scotland, per capita, is a huge beef exporter.
>>16167587>Of domestic beef cattle (not dairy) are in EnglandShould read 750,000. That is, Scotland has a little over 50% of the beef herd of England, supporting only 10% of the population, hence the surplus.
>>16167462Cows are still carbon neutral. I would say they are even carbon negative if used as beasts of burden and reduce usage of vehicles.
>>16167968They're carbon negative even without the beast of burden angle because grazed land is more fertile than ungrazed land and the excess of plantlife on the grazed land absorbs copious CO2
>>16167426Growing vegetable in contrast requires massive amounts of fuel because vegetables require huge amounts of tractor usage. Cows on the other hand walk out to the pasture on their own, feed themselves, then walk back into the barn or milking facility. Eventually the cows even walk themselves to the slaughter house, they produce almost zero CO2 in the process of producing massive amounts of nutritious food.
>>16167468>You eat them, not bury them in the groundNo, you only eat the meat which is only about 40% of the total weight and still ends up sequestered in your own body weight or put in the ground with your shit, hundreds of pounds worth of skin get sequestered as leather that can a century if treated and maintained properly, the bones are often used to craft tools or decorative items that retain all that carbon or ground up and put in the ground for fertilizer so other plants and animals can easily sequester the carbon without it going directly into the atmosphere.
>>16167486>t hypocritical anon who spent the paragraph long post purely making ad hominem fallacies instead of presenting a single well reasoned argument
>>16167509He just told you what cows are doing that microorganisms on their own don't do, they can quickly eat large amounts of waste brush over large areas of fallow land while both fertilizing and tilling the soil. Why don't you just pay attention to the arguments and try to think of counterarguments instead of trying to find ways to call people derogatory names?
>>16168608You should have replied to >>16167462 since that was the one trying to claim that raising plants and bringing them to market requires less fossil fuels than cows.
>>16167465Fucking idiot, where do you think the carbon that is in the methane that cows emit comes from? It comes from the grass they eat. When that grass grows back it pulls back all that carbon again.
>>16167990>excess of plantlife on the grazed landlmfao
>>16168637>they can quickly eat large amounts of waste brush over large areas of fallow land while both fertilizing and tilling the soil.Neither of those things are true. In fact the opposite is true.
>>16168886There are more than 2 things listed, retard who can't even count past 2.
>>16168881The ungrazed land gets rank and dies out watch the alan savory talk on the topic
>>16168892>watch the alan savory talk on the topicYou mean the guy who makes money off grazingI think I'll just look at the depleted and overgrazed cattle grazing land right outside my window thanks
>>16168893Everyone financially benefits from grazing since it improves the land and allows more co2 eating plants to grow reducing the cost of food and goods.
>>16168814Youre really something, aren't you.Please show that the whole carbon cycle transitions to methane ? You can not because it doesn't. So why bring up methane ? Why would you limit your argument to the carbon that transitions through methane ?You have also perfectly explained how cows are not a carbon sink. You have literally explained yourself that a bovine in its natural state and without association to modern human livestock management is part of a closed carbon cycle.This of course is entirely besides the point since the attempts at falsely associating arguments will never stop and this is not a review of the effects of 'the cow' but actually about modern industrialized livestock management.You can also not show that any part of the carbon cycle being at the center of this useless and divergent discussion needs anything more than microorganisms that feed on plant matter to continue.Lastly, even if sequesterization of carbon was part of said carbon cycle, after the carboniferous period, the argument could be made, it would be massively disproportionate and not worth discussing in this scope, as is evidenced by the relatively stable CO2 levels for the past 800.000+ years and the.(You) don't appear remotely smart.
>>16167968'Carbon negativity' requires sequesterization of carbon. You can not choose to create carbon emissions, discount them in your next step, so you can then stop further emissions and explain you had a net negative.
>>16167587>Some nations have extremely fuel + crop intensive practisesYour statement is correct. Still nationalism still has nothing to do with it. In case it needs explanation:You can choose to practice ressource intensive cattle raising in an area where it is not the norm and vica versa.The whole premise of the OP sure still holds true: The bovine, in its natural state, itself is carbon neutral for our purposes. The closer any cattle herding is to the bovines natural state the less carbon intensive it can be assumed to be. No surprise here. But you surely realise the argument that this eternal thread always tries to make by proxy is something entirely else.>Consider the opportunity cost of "how to dispose of the billions of tonnes of crop residue and other inedible plant byproducts produced annually around the world".Again: Those processes only require microorganisms. It even is microorganisms who do most of this job inside the digestive tract of higher order species. All residue from crop growing can be converted to compost and other types of fertilizer by microorganisms.This also is misleading. It is very well understood that the number of livestock and pets outstretches the availability of indigestible scraps by far. Ad a consequence land use is changed and crops are grown all exclusively for the entire purpose of feeding livestock. Someone, very likely OP, themselves revealed lately they are very well versed in the economics of feeding high quality protein to swine.A cow that is fed byproducts that humans can not eat is, mostly and for our purposes sufficiently 'carbon neutral'.>The UK is basically self-sufficient for beef, with imports from Republic of Ireland reflecting preferences for certain cuts. Of domestic beef cattle (not dairy) are in England and 400,000 in Scotland.What does nationalism have to do with it ? Also, are you implying all cattle in those nations are exclusively grass (and scrap) fed and never see concenteated feed ?
>>16167486Only good post ITT
>>16167990>Grazed pasture Irrigated and fertilized land*>Wilderness A perfectly healthy dry land biome that is disingenuously comparing to managed, irrigated grassland to make it seem unhealthy*
>>16168893>overgrazedgrasslands evolved to be intermittently grazed hard or burnt too much continuous grazing is also bad.
>>16167990>grazed land is more fertile than ungrazedmy sides
>>16167426Who's a cuddly little fluff ball
>>16169060the left one?
>>16167462>their artificial abundancewait until you find out how many grazing animals there used to be
>>16168922>Ad a consequence land use is changed and crops are grown all exclusively for the entire purpose of feeding livestockThis is true but not in the ways you think. It's desirable to produce more than you need every year so that surplus can cushion black swan interruptions in supply or changes in price.Things have been relatively stable and we're good at adapting so we're quite good at making a huge surplus of grains etc. They receive subsidies as part of national defense / strategic considerations all over the world so there is always oversupply, ideally.Some amount of oversupply is funnelled into all sorts of other things like alcohol, preserves, milled, etc. If those things are all still cheap, its fair to say that theres nothing wrong with our desirable oversupply of crops being used as feedstock for livestock.
>>16169114livestock can act quite well as a dampening buffer against drastic food price spikes
>>16169121exactly.living silos
>>16169145yeah>grain price goes up because of a bad harvest>don't breed as many pigs or chickens because of the unfavourable cost performance>demand for grain goes down
>>16169145Repetition of an argument that got btfo'd in the last few identical threads.Granaries are literally ancient technology. Todays granaries offer shelf life of at least several harvests. If you want to extend even further that there is options to process grains to do that.Meanwhile livestock requires constant upkeep and has a very bad caloric conversion rate effectively causing a pinch in supply. Meat too has much more limited shelf life.If humanity did not run livestock operations to the extend that we are observing while simultaneously continueing to invest the the same ressources into farming as it's currently the case humanity could maintain extensive stock of calories and afford to simply compost all the excess.Of course, one would preferably scale back on the production and use of artificial fertilizer, land use and so on.
>>16167426Fuck carbon, cows are cool.
>>16169166>and has a very bad caloric conversion rate effectivelyoffset by quality of nutrients and the other services rendered by livestock as mentioned. Cattle tilling fallow fields and eating inedible scrub are maintaining arable land with less petrochemicals or ICE vehicles.>Meat too has much more limited shelf life.Pet food has a pretty long shelf life.Livestock isn't going anywhere you autistic min maxxer it's not all about calories produced per sq km.
>>16169166>btfo'd in the last few identical threads.no it didn't
>>16169166bro you know grain is full of human toxins right like lectins and phytates?
>>16169184youre contradicting yourself>>16169188reeeee muh 'toxins'ketoschizo ?
>>16168950you're ignorant of the relevant science, heres a cartoon that might help you get up to speed https://youtu.be/8vKvDib_PKw
>>16169513>you are schizo for being concerned about lectinsok schizo
>>16169657>lectinsthats a really broad generalization
>>16169671On /sci/ that's hardly a rarity.
>>16169676but a funny contrast to the intense cherry picking whereever it suits the agenda
>>16169688That's more of a natural feature of image board discussion.I'm of the opinion that plants do not want their seeds to be eaten and tend to load them up with any number of nasties to stop animals from doing so in the first place.But animals can detoxify these seeds and convert them into nutritious meat. This is a deviation from the other anons discussing living granaries so I don't wish to dwell on it.
>>16167462I sometimes wonder what would happen if you calculated just natural biomes in the same way we calculate carbon emissions of agriculture.
>>16169756Well reportedly if you calculate nitrogen emissions from trees you get surprising results.
>>16169760Amazing trees have been doing that for half a billion years and yet all life on earth hasn't died of the greenhouse effect yet. Its almost as if all the greenhouse effect scare stories are all just a bunch of manipulative lies created with the intention of falsely justifying various policy changes
>>16169766I said nitrogen not carbon dioxide
>>16169766It's really a misinterpretation of the Gaia Hypothesis. Earth has all sorts of feedback loops, and life on Earth has effectively terraformed the planet over billions of years to its own liking; and while Human pollution is disruptive, the idea that those same feedback loops can't manage or adjust is absurd.
>>16169774absurd based on what ?In addition to that it is clear to everyone that antrophogenic emissions will not be the end of life on planet earth, no one sane person claims that. But it can very well be the source of unprecedented hardship for or the cause of the demise of the human species. Not more not less. Earth and life on earth will almost certainly regain an equilibrium again.
>>16169768Trees don't emit CO2, they absorb it. Trees emit NO2
>>16169532>heres a cartoon that might help you get up to speedLol the irony of someone who doesn't understand that more water = more plants trying to talk down to literally anyone is staggering.
>>16170205you're not even slightly familiar with savory's work and yet you consider yourself an expert in the topic, classic dunning krugerism
The process savory describes is a feedback loop with biomass accumulating in the soil from dung and trampled plants forming a mat across the surface that traps more moisture in the soil. Then regular cycles of growth and defoliation stimulate rapid growth.Of course this is site specific as the wrong soil types and climate conditions are affected, but I've seen permaculture guys do miracles in deserts by using plants to trap what moisture thtere was in the soil and create little groves
>>16167502now this is good bait 8/10
>>16168814I want to know where these retards think they are going to live or function without oil. Almost every building critical building product imaginable except literal wood is made from petroleum distillate products. I had an argument with some retard about the tires on his Tesla being a petroleum product, and these dipshits actually believe that EPDM rubber comes from trees.
>>16170704how well can we leverage oil seeds for plastics?I know there was research in the growing of dandelions to produce tyre rubber.
>>16170500You're not even slightly familiar with the concept of land management. Probably because you live in a room in your mother's apartment.
>>16170551They don't trap moisture, they just pump a shitload of it over to the parcel and pretend they didn't irrigate the land.
>>16169947Completely wrong.
>>16170826That would be impossibly expensive, not sure why you're making shit up.Rains are seasonal the trick is retention which is difficult in sandy low dry matter soils.
>>16170850>impossibly expensiveWhat do the cows drink? Are you implying that they get 100% of their water from grazing? Are you even aware that the water use is subsided?
>>16170855first we need you to answer whether mulch reduces moisture loss from the soil because you are avoiding the fendamental point and deflecting to something else.
>>16170858Nope. You need to acknowledge the inputs to that land and stop pretending that cattle ranchers don't irrigate.
>>16170862So does mulching a soil reduce water loss?
>>16170870That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not ranchers irrigate. I find it interesting that you want to accuse me of deflection while you're deflecting. Is that because you know that ranchers pump shitloads of water onto their land and you don't want to admit it?
>>16170875Your point is inferior to the question of mulch debris layers reducing water loss and increasing soil water holding capacity.
>>16170880Cope harder, retard. You want to talk about mulch instead of the tons of water that get pumped out to that land? Alright. One dude with a scythe would create more and higher quality mulch than a whole herd of cows. Even just the plants themselves create more and better mulch than cows do. That's why grass grows so long and then dies. It's to smother competition and hold in more moisture.Now that we've established that cows are the worst option for generating mulch let's get back to the land inputs. How much water is the rancher pumping out to that parcel every day?
>>16170897I'm not coping, I want us to establish some fundamentals, before I critically appraise all sides. why don't you want to acknowledge something so trivial?
>>16170923If it's so trivial then why don't you understand it, retard? Now stop deflecting and address the land inputs.
>>16167426Tyson Foods LLC. has deposited ¥20.04 into your bank account.
>>16170978It was like pulling teeth trying to get even the most basic admission out of you. Clearly you're an argumentative faggot. How many mm is a tonne of water spread over a hectare? 0.1mm?What's he stocking rate and litres per cow per day Compared to wet season dowpours we are still looking at somewhat trivial quantities. Mimicking natural grazing rhythms isn't a bad thing.
>>16171021https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS_3a8vtGYIThen support quality meat produced by real farmers who care about what they produce and aren't feeding you pink slime made up of several thousand different animals.There is a lot at stake/steak here the big boys are trying to control the entire food supply to your detriment. If you don't like tyson foods and the way they act then take responsibility for your dietary choices.
>>16171031>somewhat trivial quantities.Lol no. Would you like to try again, or are you just done now? At least now that you know that literally anything does better at mulching than cows you've stopped trying to pretend that's the only difference between those two parcels.
>>16171036>Nooo! You can't just make a huge profit at a lower price by moving to an industrial farming practice! We live in a society!
>>16171064No, not really, honestly the easiest way to mulch is probably a big crimping rollerNow a dairy cow (which we clearly aren't talking about but I'm being generous here to bump the numbers up) will take like 70l a day I'll call it 100 for simpler math, Let's say we're feeding maybe 100 cows on a hectare rotated possibly 10 times in a season.Now that gives us 100,000 litres of water in a season or 100tSo I've taken the most water demanding animal and estimated their daily water requirements assuming a highly productive lush sward with a higher stocking density than proposed and still we're looking at only a measly 10mm of water.Now what was your argument again?
>>16171067If you want to eat the punk slime it's on you buddy.
>>16171084Then don't complain about rich people using their money to expand their industry. They aren't trying to control you, they're trying to maximize profit and minimize cost and it just so happens that it doesn't correspond to your health or happiness.
>>16171083>100 tonnes of water is nothing >10mm of water doesn't matter Wew, lad. Did you want to just come right out and say you've never grown a plant before in your life?
>>16171091What point are you trying to make here?If you want to eat the pink slime go ahead, I'm going to eat something I actually trust that costs pretty much the same and I can find out how it was raised and what it was fed on.
>>16171097As I stated as clearly as I could I was taking extreme liberties with possible quantities to bump up the figures for your benefit and it still came down to a measly fucking 1cm. The real rate is probably less than 10% of that figure for the sort of range land we are talking about. 1mm per year..........even (and I just checked this for you) egypt gets 18mm of precipitation per yearhttps://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-precipitation-per-year You are either retarded or not motivated to have a real discussion
>>16171098>>16171036>There is a lot at stake/steak here the big boys are trying to control the entire food supply to your detriment.
>>16171109>measly fucking 1cm.>even (and I just checked this for you) egypt gets 18mm of precipitation per yearWew, lad. Did you want to just come right out and say you've never grown a plant before in your life?
>>16171118No that's 1mm/yearTry to actually read next time.As I said earlier your argument is ridiculous so lets just go back to talking about soil cover.
>>16171128Lol I love that as soon as you figure out that a centimeter of what is a shitload you immediately try to downplay it.>No, it's actually just 1mm!So more than 5% of Egypt's annual rainfall? And you don't think that can have any effect whatsoever on a landscape? Did you want to just come right out and say you've never grown a plant before in your life?
>>16171137Anon, we are talking about areas with wet seasons where several inches can fall in a single day.
>>16171117Watch the first part of the vid?
>>16171149And? Did you want to just come right out and say you've never grown a plant before in your life?
>>16167468>you do not shit out oil after eating themspeak for yourself
>>16170825projection
>>16171169I realise you're a troll but how many plants can you grow with 1mm of water?
>>16167554just eat the fucking bugs already
>>16172052The real question is how much more can plants grow with an extra 1 mm of water and less drought stress. Did you want to just come right out and say you've never grown a plant before in your life?
>>16167990>left piccomfy, green and full of life >right picbarren, dead wastelandand the left is nicer all due to the kind decent productive gentlemen of the cattle industry while the right side pic is trash thanks to """"environmentalism""""
>>16173114Retard.
>>16172052water is measured in volume measurements
>>16167426I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH THIS BABY COW!I WANT TO FILL HER WOMB WITH MY SEMEN!I WANT TO SUCKLE ITS JUVENILE UDDERS!I WANT TO FUCK BABY COWS!
>>161742831 mm is a measure of percipitation you fucking moron. It is relative to area. Multiplied by the area you get volume. Thus 1 mm is 1 L per square meter.Why does a certain type of thread always attract 75%+ schizos and sub 70 IQ 'people' ?
>>16173114>a picture with added captionswow. so true. this is what evidence looks like. all the data one needs.>arbitary and subjective and globally universal standards supposedly predict the quality of an ecosystemgo die rodenthttps://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/from-the-dust-bowl-to-the-sahelnow thats odd
>>16167426>Cows are carbon neutralIf you mean to ask if the carbon in their body molecules ever returns to the atmosphere, it depends on weather their corpses rot in the open air, or their carcasses somehow are kept away from oxygen in an anoxic environment. It can be buried, or somehow sunk to the bottom of a lake, only in that way does the carbon that constitutes their bodies will not escape again to the atmosphere.
>>16174377Every single atom of carbon in the cow originates from the atmosphere. The cow doesn't move underground carbon into the atmosphere. It eats plants that captured atmospheric carbon.
>>16167426they convert CO2 to methane, which is dozens of times worse
>>16174730Still carbon neutral :)Human grown animals contribute only 30% to the total methane output of humans.
>>16167990based elaine ingham knower
>>16168950>A perfectly healthy dry land biomeYou mean unproductive wasteland. Nature exists to server man.
>>16174307>wow. so true. this is what evidence looks like. all the data one needs.>get's called out that environmentalism is communist subversion to destroy western industry>demands SOOOUUURRRCEEE?????socalists are ontologically evil
>>16174867Take your meds
>>16168909You mean like how cows sequester carbon in their meat, organs, skin, and bones?
>>16169166Makes the argument:>If you want to extend even further that there is options to process grains to do that. But doesn't understand that if you want to extend the shelf life of meat even further that there are options to process meat to do that too as well since even native americans could make pemmican last a decade and there are modern MRE techniques where the meat is practically preserved indefinitely, not to mention dry animal food and other ways to keep it long term for agricultural uses.
>>16175018That's not how that works. Have you ever heard of decomposition?
>>16169513I don't see any contradiction and apparently neither do you since you can't actually point one out or explain it, instead just invoke the word to make yourself feel correct without having a correct argument.
>>16169751>I'm of the opinion that plants do not want their seeds to be eaten and tend to load them up with any number of nasties to stop animals from doing so in the first place.Then you are a pretty stupid person who doesn't understand basic plant biology and how many plants make seeds specifically because animals tend to eat them, carry them, and eventually shit them out somewhere else they can grow and spread their influence. You might as well say you are of the opinion that plants don't want their nectar being nibbled on by no bugs.
>>16175028Decomposition means that the carbon remains sequestered in other animals instead of the atmosphere and the process can take 20+ years to fully decompose a cow skeleton, much longer if you bury it in resin or tar, which means that for each cow, hundreds of pounds of carbon are sequestered for decades or more.
>>16170875Not as much as the irrigation needed to grow crops instead.
>>16175048>>16175046>>16175037>>16175032Retard takes.
>>16175079Don't hurt yourself with all that intensive research and argument formation.
>>16175079If anyone knows about taking all the retardation, it would be you.
>>16175037You're retarded
>>16175229Sure, plants don't want their seeds or pollen to spread, you are genius for figuring out that plants want to kill themselves and their offspring just as much as you do.
>>16174465>It eats plants that captured atmospheric carbon.yes, but if the cow dies and its corpse rots in the open air, that carbon is returned to the atmosphere. This is the same reason why not all forests are carbon sinks, for example. In sedimentary basins, were new accommodation space allows for more sedimentation to occur, plant material will be buried. In areas of constant erosion, plant material tends to rot before it can be buried.
>>16175241that's why they created fruit.
>>16175252Biologically speaking, by definition a fruit refers to those plant structures that are seed-bearing, so if the plants want the animals to eat the fruit, its because they want the seeds to be eaten, carried, and shat out somewhere else since the fruit is the part of the plant that contains the seeds.
>>16175251>it can be buried.it can't be easily buried*fixed
>>16175260ignore this please, my original text was correct and my reading dyslexia kicked in.
>>16175259You seem to be confused by semantics. seed eating refers to the active consumption and digestion of seeds, while fruit consumption leads to extrusion of seeds as a waste product.If they don't extract any nutrition from the seed itself then they aren't seed eaters.
>>16175263Eating and digesting are two different things, you are the one who doesn't understand semantics and the fact that plants specifically load up their seeds with fruits that entice animals to eat them so that the seeds get spread.
>>16175290if a horse eats an apple then shits out the indigestible seeds is it a fruit eater or a seed eater?
>>16175295The seed is inside the fruit, so unless it is shucking the apples to remove the seeds, it is eating seeds as well as fruit.
>>16175308You are a leftist pos
>>16175325You are literally too stupid to know what eating means since it is the act of putting something into your digestive tract not the actual complete digestion, otherwise it would be impossible to have intolerances and allergies since it would be impossible to eat something you can't tolerate or digest.
>>16175325>You are a leftist posYou stupid idiot, what does talking about seeds and plant reproduction have to do with politics?Absolutely dumb reply: you ad hominem the anon, you lost right there.
>>16175325>>>/pol/please fuck off also this thread is dead a for a whole while now, just like those threads always goe, because of typical schizos
>>16175330>>16175370>>16175373kek
>>16175375that was fun, wasn't it? too easy
>>16175018Cattle end up decomposing. Yes, this is also the case when consumed. Microorganisms do the heavy lifting. Everything absorbed is then either reemitted or incorporated in the remaining biomass, which ultimately is awaiting the same fate and also is miniscule in carbon content when put in relation to the issues the discussion circles around.>>16175026Moved the goalpost. The initial argument was that a living cow was a low maintenance buffer for food supply. On top of that even someone terribly stupid should see that preservation of your food yields more than inefficient conversion followed by preservation. So the argument you are trsing to defeat lost nothing here.>>16175046Thats an equilibrium. As such its no sequestration, not helpful at all and again miniscule in comparisson.>>16175251Forest are not carbon sinks. An emerging forest may take up the carbon that will eventually be stored in the complete population of adult trees and the next generations. It may also take up whatever will be part of the forming top soil layer if there wasn't any.It is unnatural for forests and new topsoil layers to randomly grow where there was none before. Usually this means deforestation took place, which usually means the carbon was emitted beforehand making it net 0. Tree population and top soil layer mass will eventually reach an equilibrium after which almost no additional 'sequestration' takes place and again: This is miniscule relative to the issues being discussed here, because it took the entire planets surfaces biomass generating capacity several hundret thousand of years to sequester the carbon that was later found in fossil fuels. Since the carboniferous period is over this will not happen anytime soom again and even if: It would take that long, again.Pretty much the only natural ways that currently allow somewhat permanent carbon sequstration are swamps and mineral sequestration.
>>16175389Only good post ITT
>>16175389>Pretty much the only natural ways that currently allow somewhat permanent carbon sequstration are swamps and mineral sequestration.mountain uplift?
>>16175389>Forest are not carbon sinks.My definition of a carbon sink is a natural system that locks the carbon, that was in fossil fuels and was released into the atmosphere, back into the earth. A living tree is not a carbon sink.A tree buried forever by sedimentation is. That was my point.Am I wrong?
>>16175251So... cows are carbon neutral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgtHQUi8AvQ
>>16175684It depends, as I explained. You can read, yes?
>>16175443>Mountain upliftyou mean mineral sequestration, right ?Again: Not in any proportion to the antelrophogenic carbon emissions. We're talking orders of magnitude. Also we're not even yet sure there is a net benefit:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06581-9 >>16175456>buried forever by sedimentationHow likely or common is that to happen for any given tree in a forest today ? We're talking really burried, in depths that will result in effective sterilization. Are you trying to fool yourself ? Add to that the fact that man is burning through fossil fuels in a single year that took the whole planet around 400 years to form - during a time where there was no possibility for lignine to decompose. Compare that chance of a tree to contribute to the chance for your scenario, and multiply the 400 years by that ratio.
>>16167426>Cows are carbon neutralKek. Fucking hysterical, OP.
>>16176152It doesn't depend on anything. Cows don't increase atmospheric carbon.
>>16175389If cow mass is minuscule and it doesn't matter if you prevent their carbon from entering the atmosphere for decades by keeping it bound to other biomasses as you keep saying, then their contributions to the carbon footprint don't even matter, so your entire point is moot and you are just confirming that cows are carbon neutral since their contribution is so minuscule.
>>16176739Retard take
>>16176390>How likely or common is that to happen for any given tree in a forest today ?My point isn't about how common or not it is. I was explaining the process.Since you ask, all forests growing on mountainsides that are eroding will rot in open air because sedimentation rates are negative, and most fallen tree material rots on the spot.Some forests grow on areas of sedimentation, like basins and estuaries, those get buried. For example, mangrove forests are great carbon sinks. Alpine forests aren't.
>>16176734>Cows don't increase atmospheric carbon.That is correct, but they can decrease it by not decomposing in the open air when they die.
>>16177105(they can be carbon negative in that way)
>>16177105Though it is true for the total atomic carbon mass in the atmosphere, the following happens:Grass captures CO2 from the atmosphere and locks the atomic carbon in organic molecules. The cow eats the grass and in its digestive process, that carbon in those organic molecules gets converted into methane in the cow's digestive tract. The cow defecates or flatulates, and the methane is released.Though the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere is unchanged, the CO2 gets converted into methane, and methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, though it has a much shorter lifetime. As well.If we have a few cows around, the phenomenon isn't a problem, but if we have large numbers of cows, it might.
>>16177117Your point translates to cows not being GHG-neutral. OPs claim was that cows were specifically carbon-neutral. (OP is after something else entirely with this thread anyways).
>>16177122I know what he wants with this thread, that much is obvious, but I'm breaking it down into little parts and processes, so that he understands exactly what happens
>>16177393Methane breaks down to CO2 eventually anyway, and can also be mitigated in the future by reducing it (additives to cow diet) and capturing it.There is no "runaway" methane effect of it constantly increasing. Assuming the amount of cows doesn't change, we will reach peak methane and the amount in the atmosohere will be an set on an equilibrium.
>>16177854https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
>>16177862You are a condescending ass who doesn't even know what he's talking about. Did you know most human-made methane in the atmosphere is not from cows, with agriculture being only 25% of the total methane output? Did you know methane is responsible for only 30% of the rise in global temperatures?
>>16177042Agreed, it is pretty retarded to bitch about something having the potential to end civilization only to then claim it is actually a minuscule problem in the scheme of things.
>>16177117The methane potential is in the foliage anyway, if the cows weren't eating it and producing methane, other microorganisms would and all the plants would just break down and release the methane into the atmosphere anyway, at least with cows you can lead them all into an enclosure and capture the methane.
>>16177862>wikipedia fake and gay
>>16177983methane isn't a significant greenhouse gas
>>16177983Irrelevant to the OP's question. He asked a simple question, he got his answers.What we can or cannot do, or we should or not do with cows and their methane, is already off-topic.
>>16177854>>16177869>>16177983>>16178948>>16179563Retard takes
>>16179865Retard take
>>16167426your mom is not carbon neutral, faggot
>theres 100 million cows in china>theres 300 milllion cows in india >theres 400 million cows in africa >theres 30 million cows in north america >so i'm going to solve """""global warming"""" by getting rid of the cows in north america
>>16179865Retard Take , your just gonna deny that methane is a small part of greenhouse gases.>>16167426Ahh yes kill every cow because they produce methane.>>16179865Retard Take , your just gonna deny that methane is a small part of greenhouse gases.>>16167426Ahh yes kill every cow because they produce methane.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g
>>16180391My bad the text was messed up
>>16180391>>16180216Retard takes
>>16180391
>>16181054Reduced IQ due to malnutrition should be on that list somewhere too
>>16178948This, wikipedia is just another shit tier ZOG propaganda outlet
>>16179865the retard take is that we must destroy civilization by putting the government in charge of the economy to stop climate change, rather than allowing free market forces to innovate solutions to any problems it may bring
>>16182701>>16182465>>16181995>>16181054Retard takes
>>16182701isn't that the same government thats been in charge the whole time that global warming supposedly became a big problem? shouldn't they be the last people to be trusted to solve the issue since they're responsible for supposedly creating it?
>>16183536>isn't that the same government thats been in charge the whole time that global warming supposedly became a big problem? Yes, but environmentalists think bigger government is a good idea.>shouldn't they be the last people to be trusted to solve the issue since they're responsible for supposedly creating it?Yes, and because making government bigger is the worst thing to do for essentially all problems.
Caws
>>16183550>>16183536Retard takes
Cows are carbon neutral, lab meat is not.
cows are not carbon neutral.
>>16184896>>16184927Show your work.
>>16184896lab meat is carcinogenic
>>16185631What isn't?
>>16167426>>16167453I agree but for different reasons.Normoids don't deserve steak if they didn't rear the beast themselves, also sheep are better liverstock
>>16184927>cows invented carbonum based indians were right the whole time
Peter Ballerstedt is awesome. really knows his animal nutrition sciencehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsEqV0Bjcs
>>16186538interesting sequence of graphs around 23 minutes in
>>16184927>>16183578>>16182717>>16180410>>16179893>>16179865>>16175079>>16174889
>>16185638Beef prevents cancer https://biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu/news/tva-nutrient-cancer-immunity
>>16186731Added to watchlist
