this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
713 points (97.2% liked)

Greentext

4460 readers
1253 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

This is complete bs.

Tldr: cows in sheds eating corn is the problem, cows eating natural grass actually sequester more carbon than an empty field.

Long answer: Photosynthesis can only get carbon from the atmosphere. This carbon is then turned into plant material in grass. This grass is then eaten by the cow. A small portion of this grass will be converted into methane and other byproducts in the cow's digestive tracks. Some will be turned to energy for the cow and a vast majority will be shit out as raw unprocessed material. This raw unprocessed material, i.e. cow shit, this will last in the environment sequestering more carbon for longer time than just grass sitting there by itself. A grazed paddock will grow more grass than a non-grazed paddock because the cows are eating the fucking grass. i.e. more carbon from the environment is getting sequestered in the grass and the cow shit.

The only reason that cows get such a bad wrap is that variouse other factors are being counted that really shouldnt be under cows. Deforestation to grow plants to feed livestock, the transportation of meat, livestock feed etc etc.

A properly managed grass fed beef (like what we have here in australia) actually has a net negative effect on ghg. The factory farmed beef eating corn in a shed thats never seen a blade of grass is whats actually causing the ghg seen in the reports.

We have already seen this narrarive been used to strongarm small farmers grazing cattle while the multinational farms get away with fucking the environment cos they can afford the cost of beurocracy.

We are all just 3 warm meals away from anarchy thats something we should do well to remember.

Ps. Its not "cow flatulence" its "enteric fermentation" (burps) cow farts just makes a better headline.

Edit: formatting

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think you should've put TL;DR in the beginning, otherwise it looked like you're arguing cows don't fart, when you were actually about net effect.

I never thought about it from this side, but it makes sense, and seems like another way big corporations fuck the world up.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Good shout.

Its a classic case of simple answer to a complex problem that nobody really thinks about cos it sounds vaguely reasonable in a headline.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I can't believe my eyes, someone that isn't spouting the usual bullshit about cows and GHG on Lemmy.

I'll be gobsmacked.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

tract

rap

various