The federal government is proposing financial incentives for farmers in lieu of cutting enteric methane emissions that are released in the air when cows burp.
The federal government is proposing financial incentives for farmers in lieu of cutting enteric methane emissions that are released in the air when cows burp.
they will finance farmers to feed cows some stuff reducing burping but there’s not a word in implication on animals/humans. Like wheat mutation that allowed larger yields but spiked gluten content this has the same potential. How about “stop feeding animals crap they are not supposed to eat”? We’ve had A LOT of bizon and other ruminants grazing this land before we’ve exterminated them with no methane effects seemingly. So perhaps it’s worth looking at sustainable husbandry rather than feedlots and factory farms?
The biomass of livestock for human consumption vastly outnumbers natural populations.
grass instead of corn, that they don’t digest well
Before hunting the almost to extinction, there were 60 million bisons in America.
In 2022 there were 90 million cows and they get killed much faster than bisons lived naturally.
If you want to have ""sustainable husbandry “” there’s only one way. Eat less meat.
Cow is not the only meat. Small example: we use lots of machinery for manicuring lawns, fields etc. This is pollution plain and simple. We use mechanized methods for clearing the brush. Having goats/sheep/other grazers covers both needs without heavy impact on pollution. While it is possible that eat less meat is a thing one has to take into account a lot of other things. Among which eat less period. Obesity pandemic around the globe exacerbates the issue - larger humans consume more calories thus require more production. Food waste is rampant. Estimates pin spoilage at 40%. So, no, I say we should address core issues before we can declare that all options have been exhausted and now we’ve got to cut on meat consumption.
Why is cutting cutting down on meat consumption a last resort in your opinion? It’s extremely trivial for 99% of people.
despite the fact that you decided to just ignore arguments I’ve just laid out, I’ll bite. It is not trivial. In certain areas/regions growing vegetables is more difficult than rearing animals that can convert inedible grass/brush into consumable calories. Trucking in non-meat alternatives is carbon intensive. In other words problem lies with industrial food priduction and distribution regardless of kind of food. If food had to travel 1000 miles to get to your table on top of intensive methods of growing it - it’s carbon footprint is enormous. Also industrial food production implies heavy fossils use at every stage. It’s solving the symptom rather than the cause. Which is why I’d rather see cause addressed before we can turn to symptoms.
Sustainable husbandry that provides the same amount of food would also require a signifcant amount more land, which comes with its own concerns.
We are a somewhat advanced civilization in possession of math and other science knowledge. Can we not figure out optimal balance instead of jacking everything up in our failure? I mean you’re right extensive replaced with expansive is not much of a solution but we can estimate what kind of load can ecosystem truly sustain. Say, we return the bison and other mammal numbers back to what they used to be, then we measure population growth deriving reasonable ratio for animal consumption at which animal numbers can remain relatively stable. However that will not remove all the other sources of pollution. I just want us to stop “experimenting” on ourselves, animals and environment when we really have no idea what are we doing. In science you go back to previously known good state and reevaluate hypothesis… we’re not doing that, we’re just doubling down on insanity 🙁