If you think that eating "grass-fed" meats makes you a better person, then you are completely wrong. There is really no empirical evidence to show that grass-fed livestock have a lower carbon footprint—as opposed to grains. Instead, it is believed that reducing the AMOUNT of food that is fed to livestock will help reduce climate issues, and not the type of food that they are given. It is estimated that livestock are responsible for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions. The aforementioned gasses include methane, nitrous oxide, and CO2 (Carbon Dioxide). Because most cattle are raised on "landless", or pastures with little green to eat, they are fed grain instead of grass. It is believed that letting the cattle roam could actually reinitialize grasslands. However, studies show that cattle only sequester CO2 in very specific and ideal conditions. Plus, an abundance of cows will ultimately lead to a degradation of soil and plant life through overindulgence and trampling. The demand of meat in general is what is causing the planet to move towards agricultural insatiability.
I find it quite odd that people could believe that the diet of cattle and livestock is what is causing their inordinate amount of greenhouse gas emissions. I mean, it makes sense that grain is usually run through a factory before being given to cattle, but the differences seem negligible in regards to greenhouse gas emissions. What is the diet really going to change? It seems that we are trying to find something to blame. It is not WHAT we are feeding the livestock, rather it is eating meat in general. As more people move up away from poverty, meat becomes an available option for them. Once meat begins to rise in demand, greenhouse gas increases will follow.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
December 2017
Categories |
Photo used under Creative Commons from iainmerchant