05a1cb4b0c28558c2be2b7ac81b9467a
1

Link: Grass fed beef produces more greenhouse gasses

by (106)
Updated about 5 hours ago
Created April 22, 2011 at 9:04 PM

http://news.discovery.com/earth/grass-fed-beef-grain.html

This just seems strange to me. The guy says that cows digest grain better than grass???

64242a1130eb51f4852f78beed38b3d5
1348 · April 25, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Yeah I would agree we contribute.

0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0
285 · April 23, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I upvoted just because I don't think that global warming can be blamed on any one thing. I disagree that it is a hoax, but do agree that there is a natural part to the warming, as I posted above, due to a polarity change in the Earth.

0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0
285 · April 23, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I might agree with this "natural cycle" in that it appears that the geomagnetic field is weakening and thus may be allowing more external influences (solar rays, etc) to be entering the Earths atmosphere. But I think humans have contributed to the majority of the global warming problem...at least for the moment.

98148e265e1a9b27ce1c206190c1b8a4
5136 · April 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM

excellent point!

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29
3976 · April 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM

This is why I wrote that it's only half of what I need to know, and that the rest is in the material itself. I know there are good, honest researchers out there, despite their funding sources, and ES&T is peer reviewed, unlike Energy & Environment, which is where some of the real questionable material ends up. I'm sorry that you have to go through this, but it's also why I prefer more neutral funding sources. Sadly, the big money for some big research is always more likley to be had from commercial sources with a vested interest in the outcome, ie Big Oil & Big Pharma.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
78422 · April 23, 2011 at 3:43 PM

before aggriculture... the breeds were less huge. modern breeds weather grassfed or not are sick in the sense of nature.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
78422 · April 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM

if you live in inuit areas you wont claim such thing. watch isuma.tv inuit and climate change.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb
19220 · April 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM

A hoax? Seriously?

64242a1130eb51f4852f78beed38b3d5
1348 · April 23, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The next batch of oil isn't gonna make itself.

D3ff004d4a0c42b67cc2c49a5ee9c0f3
5796 · April 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I perform quite a bit of research and get funding from both sides of the camp. I don't skew results based on funding (I have my biases because I am human, but I try to account for that). Additionally, most people are honest and I don't believe most scientists would skew results either. Unfortunately, even when the science is perfect, an idiot can say "follow the money" and now I have to defend my research. Unfortunately, "follow the money" is taken with more authority than if a person had read/understood the whole study and actually analyzed the data.

D3ff004d4a0c42b67cc2c49a5ee9c0f3
5796 · April 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM

If you read the first couple chapters of Good Calories Bad Calories and substitute "Carbon Dioxide" for cholesterol and "environment" for heart disease you can see the same politics, publicity, biased science, funding, and consensus building.

E35e3d76547b18096a59c90029e7e107
15583 · April 23, 2011 at 10:25 AM

I'm sure humans produce more methane eating brocolli than eating processed white bread, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the bread is the more appropriate food.

05a1cb4b0c28558c2be2b7ac81b9467a
106 · April 23, 2011 at 2:12 AM

as in... humans?

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29
3976 · April 23, 2011 at 12:58 AM

You're so welcome, guy on the internet who calls something "bunk" even though he doesn't study it and it wasn't part of the person's question. I don't go around telling architects how to build houses - that's not my field.

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc
4181 · April 23, 2011 at 12:24 AM

That's awesome Shirley, I'm thrilled that you are far superior to me and you made sure to let me know. I appreciate your opinion and respect your right to have one <3

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29
3976 · April 22, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Oh, I see, you edited the snarky comment, but want to make sure everyone knows you originally put a snarky comment in. There are actually some people here who study science who are plainly keeping their snarky comments about you to themselves. And "all things" don't produce carbon as a *waste* product, only animals emit carbon dioxide as a *waste* product. Perhaps you think reveling in one's own waste is a good idea. I don't, and I also study science.

6e24575aafccf63e02172715b3cd60ef
6 · April 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM

It's the craziness of the environmental movement that everything thats good is measured in lower carbon emissions. How did the environment become so reductionist and one dimensional?

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b
3184 · April 22, 2011 at 10:21 PM

But snarky Earth Day comments are the best!

Total Views
1.2K

Recent Activity
677bf180dca60230f7bb01c07927e7df

Last Activity
72D AGO

Followers
0

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

10 Answers

best answer

528a7dc6df9a323dcdcd6d85c2fd3fd4
5
115 · April 22, 2011 at 11:51 PM

According to Green House Gasses Online, Rice Paddies produce 50 to 100 million metric tonnes of methane every year. Compared to the 80 million attributed to cattle. I think rice farming should be banned. At least cows produce fertilizer and improve the land.

98148e265e1a9b27ce1c206190c1b8a4
5136 · April 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM

excellent point!

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29
5
3976 · April 23, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Half of what I need to know about this study, besides the methods used and how they arrived at their conclusions, is in this part of the article: "according to the study, which was published in Environmental Science and Technology, and funded by Meat and Livestock Australia."

D3ff004d4a0c42b67cc2c49a5ee9c0f3
5796 · April 23, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I perform quite a bit of research and get funding from both sides of the camp. I don't skew results based on funding (I have my biases because I am human, but I try to account for that). Additionally, most people are honest and I don't believe most scientists would skew results either. Unfortunately, even when the science is perfect, an idiot can say "follow the money" and now I have to defend my research. Unfortunately, "follow the money" is taken with more authority than if a person had read/understood the whole study and actually analyzed the data.

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29
3976 · April 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM

This is why I wrote that it's only half of what I need to know, and that the rest is in the material itself. I know there are good, honest researchers out there, despite their funding sources, and ES&T is peer reviewed, unlike Energy & Environment, which is where some of the real questionable material ends up. I'm sorry that you have to go through this, but it's also why I prefer more neutral funding sources. Sadly, the big money for some big research is always more likley to be had from commercial sources with a vested interest in the outcome, ie Big Oil & Big Pharma.

677bf180dca60230f7bb01c07927e7df
4
247 · April 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Before agriculture, didn't cows eat grass and grass alone? Cows eating grass is the way it was supposed to be, that's all you really need to know.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
78422 · April 23, 2011 at 3:43 PM

before aggriculture... the breeds were less huge. modern breeds weather grassfed or not are sick in the sense of nature.

Acfd35c9e350bb4c0c17810af4decd95
1
483 · April 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM

When "global warming," "carbon footprint," etc., are brought into the discussion, I immediately lose interest. I was satisfied at the beginning that it was all a hoax and I have been proven correct. "Climate change," to use the more encompassing expression, is a natural progression. The climate has changed round and round, back and forth, since the creation of the planet.

However, cattle do digest grain easier, though the word "better" is a mistake. Grass is tough to digest even if one is designed for it. Grains are mostly carbohydrates so the stuff is easier to break down than cellulose, and the cattle gain weight much quicker on grain than on grass. The problem with cattle eating a mostly grain diet is they get sick and sick cattle do not grow. Did you know the cattle feeding industry is the largest consumer of baking soda? The cattle get heartburn, believe it or not, and the baking soda knocks it down, just as it does for us.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb
19220 · April 23, 2011 at 2:33 PM

A hoax? Seriously?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
78422 · April 23, 2011 at 3:40 PM

if you live in inuit areas you wont claim such thing. watch isuma.tv inuit and climate change.

0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0
285 · April 23, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I upvoted just because I don't think that global warming can be blamed on any one thing. I disagree that it is a hoax, but do agree that there is a natural part to the warming, as I posted above, due to a polarity change in the Earth.

64242a1130eb51f4852f78beed38b3d5
1
1348 · April 23, 2011 at 1:51 AM

I think global warming is a natural cycle. It is a defense mechanism to burn off the fleas.

64242a1130eb51f4852f78beed38b3d5
1348 · April 23, 2011 at 2:07 PM

The next batch of oil isn't gonna make itself.

0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0
285 · April 23, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I might agree with this "natural cycle" in that it appears that the geomagnetic field is weakening and thus may be allowing more external influences (solar rays, etc) to be entering the Earths atmosphere. But I think humans have contributed to the majority of the global warming problem...at least for the moment.

05a1cb4b0c28558c2be2b7ac81b9467a
106 · April 23, 2011 at 2:12 AM

as in... humans?

64242a1130eb51f4852f78beed38b3d5
1348 · April 25, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Yeah I would agree we contribute.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094
1
78422 · April 22, 2011 at 10:26 PM

the best is not just grassfed. the more ecological are old animal breeds which are less massive in their lifestyle. If you have a SUV under the cows it doesnt... Or actually today cows are more like a Hammer(big fuel eating car) under the cows, producing high milk in quick time it doesnt matter if just the food which the cow gets is grass. ITs also that the breed, the race of the cows is more naturally in his lifestyle.

So old breed from old days are hopefully more friendly.

To grain . i heard that it produces less Methan. The problem this is only simple thought. The production of grain and the transportation of grain also cost emisions. So far i understood when a cow eat grain it produces less gas. Additional the effect of producing the grains and transporting the grains and the grain fed meat is in the end much more environmetal polluting.

A thiord thing is that this studies fail in clear definition. and then i heard the meat of the old milk cows should be the environmetal friendliest. This are very simple calculations. In real life on longtimes its all more complex and dynamic. In nature you calculate with variable not just simple.

C1c86f42410cd4788bd9c5cf801dcd8f
1
2246 · April 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM

"Experts point out that eating vegetarian is far better from a carbon point of view."

I question the legitimacy of any article that makes that claim. Stripping the land to feed people, or stripping the land to feed animals its all going to kill the environment. Grass and the bi product of cows eating grass adds to the top soil.

Everything else tends to remove it.

6e24575aafccf63e02172715b3cd60ef
6 · April 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM

It's the craziness of the environmental movement that everything thats good is measured in lower carbon emissions. How did the environment become so reductionist and one dimensional?

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc
1
4181 · April 22, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Anyone who has watched Food Inc. can see what grain does to a cow, and it isn't good. As for the environment, all things produce carbon and I think it's bunk that we need to control that. (Also editted out snarky comment)

34a367e60db77270bd7096dc04270fdc
4181 · April 23, 2011 at 12:24 AM

That's awesome Shirley, I'm thrilled that you are far superior to me and you made sure to let me know. I appreciate your opinion and respect your right to have one <3

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b
3184 · April 22, 2011 at 10:21 PM

But snarky Earth Day comments are the best!

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29
3976 · April 22, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Oh, I see, you edited the snarky comment, but want to make sure everyone knows you originally put a snarky comment in. There are actually some people here who study science who are plainly keeping their snarky comments about you to themselves. And "all things" don't produce carbon as a *waste* product, only animals emit carbon dioxide as a *waste* product. Perhaps you think reveling in one's own waste is a good idea. I don't, and I also study science.

E7be2ce38158357f5dacae07b43d1b29
3976 · April 23, 2011 at 12:58 AM

You're so welcome, guy on the internet who calls something "bunk" even though he doesn't study it and it wasn't part of the person's question. I don't go around telling architects how to build houses - that's not my field.

D3ff004d4a0c42b67cc2c49a5ee9c0f3
5796 · April 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM

If you read the first couple chapters of Good Calories Bad Calories and substitute "Carbon Dioxide" for cholesterol and "environment" for heart disease you can see the same politics, publicity, biased science, funding, and consensus building.

0fd24d837dbad54740f53cc5f72068a0
0
285 · April 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM

A point that I don't see, or either missed, is that yes, cattle do produce emissions. But what isn't mentioned is that in the natural state of things (thinking of the American Buffulo) of eating grass and then moving, eating grasses and then moving on helped develop such vast amounts of grasslands with highly developed root structures where carbon is stored. We've eliminated a great amount of grasslands and added to the overall carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Believe it or not, proper herding stores carbon (carbon farming) and even reverse desertification....I believe I've seen Melissa post a link several times on the issue involving proper herding techniques (mob grazing, holistic grazing...some of the terms I've read)

5e36f73c3f95eb4ea13a009f4936449f
0
8255 · April 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM

If the cows digest grain so much better, how well do they survive on grains without all the antibiotics and maintenance? Yeah, exactly, they die young. The guy's either an idiot or paid off.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes