* Originally in: TQW_GENSCI
* Originally on: 11-06-23 02:15
* Originally by: PopularScience-Climate-Ch

Why cutting back on cow consumption is so hard

Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2023 02:00:00 +0000

The overarching nature of the food system requires a collective approach to shrinking its enormous emissions.

Cattle play a colossal role in climate change: As the single largest agricultural source of methane, a potent planet-warming gas, the worlds 940 million cows spew nearly 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissionsmuch of it through belches and droppings.

As such, theres an astonishing amount of time and money being funneled into emission control . On-farm biodigesters, for example, take a backend approach by harvesting methane wafting from manure pits. A slew of research aims to curb bovine burps by feeding them seaweed, essential oils, and even a bovine Beano of sorts. The latest endeavor, a $70 million effort led by a Nobel laureate, uses gene-editing technology in an effort to eliminate that pollution by reengineering the animals gut microbes.

Given the worlds growing appetite for meat and dairy, these novel ventures
are crucial to inching us toward international and national climate goals.
Yet they beg the question: Wouldnt it be easier to ditch milk, cheese , and beef for plant-based alternatives? Why fight nature when theres an easier solution, at least from a scientific perspective?

Research shows that even a modest skew away from meat-based diets can shrink an individuals carbon footprint as much as 75 percent . As it turns out, however, untangling cows from the climate equation is enormously complicatedespecially in the United States, where the industry, worth $275 billion annually, boasts the worlds fourth largest cattle population and is its top beef and dairy producer . Achieving a cheeseburger-free America faces formidable challenges. Beyond overcoming cultural shiftsthe countrys per-capita consumption of mozzarella, to name one example, averages one pound a month lies the challenge of meeting nutritional demands and rebalancing the intricacies of an agricultural, food, and industrial economy inextricably linked to livestock farming.

For these reasons, greener diets are but one prong in a larger set of food-based solutions for curtailing human-caused climate change, said Stephen Sturdivant, an environmental engineer at the Environmental Protection Agency. We need a comprehensive combination of strategies to achieve a truly sustainable future, he said. We cant just cherry-pick our way to get there.

The nations taste for meat and dairy is undeniable. In addition to a steady, decade-long-rise in beef consumption , which hit 20 billion pounds in 2021, Americans gobbled up 12 percent more cheese, butter, and ice cream than in
the previous year, continuing an upward trend that started half a century
ago.

Theres a fundamental disconnect, though, between our growing demand for animal-based protein and its enormous carbon footprint. Producing a pound of steak generates nearly 100 times more greenhouse gas than an equivalent
amount of peas, while cheese production emits eight times the volume of
making tofu.

Although the American beef and dairy industries are among the most efficient in the worlddue in part to better breeding, genetics, and nutritionthey still leave a significant hoofprint. The nations 92 million cattle generate 4 percent of the countrys total greenhouse gases and account for 40 percent of all agricultural emissions.

However, if those herds were to magically disappear, it wouldnt eliminate the problem entirely. According to a peer-reviewed study , an animal-free agricultural system would shave just 2.6 percent off the countrys total greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, any reduction would be noteworthy given the nations outsized role in climate changethat drop would be equivalent to three times Portugals annual emissions though that benefit would come with drawbacks.

With no livestock to feed, the acreage now used to grow silage and hay could be replaced with food crops. Yet because higher value fruits and vegetables require quality soil, specific climate conditions, and ample water infrastructure, most of that land would be limited to growing calorie-heavy, hardy broad acre crops such as corn and soybeansa system change that would
add its own climate impacts.

In fact, agricultures current emissions are a result of a certain balance between crops and livestock, said Robin White, a professor of animal and poultry science at Virginia Tech and the lead author of the research. Crops need fertilizer, a resource often provided by livestock, and producing synthetic versions is an energy-intensive process that typically requires fossil fuels and emits methane. Cattle also help keep agricultural byproductsfrom fruit peels and pulp to almond hulls and spent brewery grainsout of landfills, reducing the carbon output of crop waste by 60
percent .

Eliminating the nations cattle and replacing feed production with food crops would create more food, White said, resulting in a caloric surplus of 25 percent. That abundance, however, would come with deficits in essential nutrients , as plant-based foods tend to fall short in vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and fatty acids. (Although existing studies reflect good long-term health in vegetarians, research on those who eschew all animal-derived foods is inconclusive .)

Larger discussions around sustainability tend to overlook these complexities, said White. Food insecurity is often tied to caloric sufficiency, but doesnt always reflect nutritional needs, particularly those of vulnerable populations. Pregnant, lactating, and elderly women , for example, are susceptible to anemia and low bone density, mainly due to inadequate iron and calcium intakenutrients readily available in red meat and dairy products, and easily accessible to large swaths of the population.

These types of nuances get lost, said White, when we focus exclusively on the broader metrics of diet change. While balanced choices can work for individuals, keeping the country adequately fed and healthy is a complicated endeavor. Theres an entire agricultural system behind that food production, she added, and changing the pieces within it requires careful examination.

Given the scale of the beef and dairy industries, the central role they play in feeding people, and the difficulty of removing them from the economy, cattle clearly arent moving on any time soon. For that reason, theres been no shortage of resources aimed at, quite literally, the gut of the emissions issue.

As with most ruminants, cattle make the most of a paltry diet, converting
cud, grains, and crop waste into muscle and milk. Extracting all that energy from cellulose and plant fibers requires the work of digestive microbes; cow rumens host entire colonies of bacteria, yeast, and fungi that ferment
complex carbohydrates into microbial protein, which they then absorb, and volatile fatty acids, which they expel as methane and other gases.

Several dietary supplements have been shown to minimize bovine bloating. A twice-daily garlic and citrus extract can cut emissions by 20 percent, while
a red seaweed additive can inhibit them by as much as 80 percent without impacting animal health or productivity or imparting detectable flavor to the resulting proteins. But having a transformative impact will require industrial-scale production and implementation. The promising strain of seaweed, for instance, prefers tropical waters, and developing a supply chain robust enough to serve tens of millions of cattle with a daily intervention leaves a trail of unanswered questions regarding effective farming, processing, and distribution techniques.

Ultimately, tinkering with the animals digestive system may hold the most scalable answer. Jennifer Doudna, who won the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry for pioneering the CRISPR gene-editing tool, is leading a University of California team that hopes to do just that. The recently launched project
aims to identify the offending gut bacteria through metagenomics, another breakthrough technology that maps the functions of complex microbial communities, then restructure their DNA to produce less methane. The goal is to develop an oral treatment for calves that, once administered, will
continue repopulating their rumen with the genetically modified microflora.

Were trying to come up with a solution to reduce methane that is easily accessible and inexpensive, Matthias Hess, an associate professor at UC Davis and a project lead, said in an interview . Its a fix that, if successful, could make a serious dent in tamping down cattle emissions the world over.

Their mission launched earlier this year, funded by the TED Audacious
Project. Along with livestock, microbiomes generate nearly two-thirds of global methane emissions through landfills, wastewater, and rice paddies. If successful, our technology could really move the needle in our fight against climate change, Doudna said in a recent TED Talk .

Even as science tries making cows more climate-friendly, the tide of consumption has seen a steady shift. In the last two years, the majority of Americans have upped their intake of plant-based foods, with almost half of millennials and Gen Z-ers regularly eating vegan. But theres also been
another notable tip in the scale: Just 12 percent of the country eats half
the nations beef . And for many in the meat-heavy minority, the perils of climate change seem to do little in nudging them toward planet-friendlier meals.

A global study of factors that encourage greener diets found that climate
risk perception is but one influencing factor, along with health implications and economic circumstances. Yet its the people around us, said Sibel Eker,
the reports lead author, who hold the most sway in changing individual attitudes, beliefs, and valuesin other words, theres power in herd mentality.

If there are more vegetarians or flexitarians around you, you tend to think that this is the norm in society, said Eker, a sustainable service systems researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria. So if you have the intention of changing your behavior, the social cost [to do so] becomes lower.

In fact, when it comes to influencing environment-related behaviors such as recycling and ditching cars, social norms and comparisons are incredibly effective, far outpacing other drivers such as financial incentives and
public appeals, according to a separate study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. And positive visibility and reinforcement by individuals, a community, or mass and social mediado more to encourage climate action than shaming people who arent fully on board, Eker said.Otherwise, it just makes the matter alienating and polarizing.

In the end, the overarching nature of the food system requires a collective approach to shrinking its enormous emissions. While theres no denying the outsized environmental footprint of animal-based foods, dietary shifts are part of a much larger strategy around food-based climate action, said the
EPAs Sturdivant. Along with improved farming practices such as maximizing yields and minimizing inputs, reducing food loss and waste is just as critical. And for these reasons and more, meatless Mondays, vegan Fridays,
and less polluting cows all have their place in mitigating the role cattle play in warming the world.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/agriculture/why-cant-we-just-quit-cows/ .

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The post Why cutting back on cow consumption is so hard appeared first on Popular Science . Articles may contain affiliate links which enable us to share in the revenue of any purchases made.

Link to news story:
https://www.popsci.com/environment/eating-cows/
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Research shows that even a modest skew away from meat-based diets can shrink >an individuals carbon footprint as much as 75 percent . As it turns out, >however, untangling cows from the climate equation is enormously >complicatedespecially in the United States, where the industry, worth $275 >billion annually, boasts the worlds fourth largest cattle population and is >its top beef and dairy producer . Achieving a cheeseburger-free America faces >formidable challenges. Beyond overcoming cultural shiftsthe countrys >per-capita consumption of mozzarella, to name one example, averages one pound >a month lies the challenge of meeting nutritional demands and rebalancing the >intricacies of an agricultural, food, and industrial economy inextricably >linked to livestock farming.

This article is interesting, but what they don't mention is that achieving
a "cheeseburger-free America" doesn't completely curtail our raising of livestock. China owns one of our largest meat producers, and largest pork producer, in the form of Smithfield. Not only do they own the processing plants, they also own the company farmland.

If we quit eating meat, Smithfield will continue farming livestock (and if
they are smart, expand their footprint by buying up the unused-by-us farms)
to feed China's population.

I cannot find any place in the article where they mention the ownership of
US livestock farms by China, or any other foreign nations. I used to work
for a packing plant that was owned by a French-Belgian company, but we
didn't own our own farms, although they might have through other US
holdings.

However, if those herds were to magically disappear, it wouldnt eliminate the >problem entirely. According to a peer-reviewed study , an animal-free >agricultural system would shave just 2.6 percent off the countrys total >greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, any reduction would be noteworthy given >the nations outsized role in climate changethat drop would be equivalent to >three times Portugals annual emissions though that benefit would come with >drawbacks.

So although the livestock industry produces a "huge" amount of greenhouse
gas, getting rid of it only eliminates 2.6% of said gasses. I wonder how
much money the government is "investing" in all of these studies in order
to eliminate 2.6% of greenhouse gases.

With no livestock to feed, the acreage now used to grow silage and hay could >be replaced with food crops. Yet because higher value fruits and vegetables >require quality soil, specific climate conditions, and ample water >infrastructure, most of that land would be limited to growing calorie-heavy, >hardy broad acre crops such as corn and soybeansa system change that would >add its own climate impacts.

I don't know how they do it, but out west they can raise livestock in near desert conditions... places where these plants won't grown without heavy irrigation and soil manipulation. West Texas and New Mexico are full of
cattle ranches, and even Arizona and Southern California have them.

In fact, agricultures current emissions are a result of a certain balance >between crops and livestock, said Robin White, a professor of animal and >poultry science at Virginia Tech and the lead author of the research. Crops >need fertilizer, a resource often provided by livestock, and producing >synthetic versions is an energy-intensive process that typically requires >fossil fuels and emits methane. Cattle also help keep agricultural
byproducts from fruit peels and pulp to almond hulls and spent brewery
grains out of landfills, reducing the carbon output of crop waste by 60 >percent .

Sounds like the "meatless" idea would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Thanks to inflation, substituting veggies for meat is not as economically thrifty as it was just a few years ago.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Mike Powell wrote to All <=-

Cattle play a colossal role in climate change: As the single largest agricultural source of methane, a potent planet-warming gas, the worlds 940 million cows spew nearly 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissionsmuch of it through belches and droppings.

And, yet, the Tree Huggers want us to get our protein from beans to reduce methane emissions.


... Have a cold? Let me introduce you to Doc Jack Kevorkian.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: *The Gate BBS*Shelby, NC USA*thegateb.synchro.net* (1:3634/27)

Mike Powell wrote to All <=-

I wonder how much money the government is "investing" in all of these studies in order to eliminate 2.6% of greenhouse gases.

Too much, you can bet. But that's the norms. Most of the money is actually going to their money laundering schemes and then back into their own pockets.

I don't know how they do it, but out west they can raise livestock in
near desert conditions...

They've been doing that since days of the Old West.

Sounds like the "meatless" idea would be like robbing Peter to pay
Paul.

Which is, again, normal for these people.

But the goal is always toward control of the population. And not having enough food is an effective method of control.


... Sure I can help you out! Which way did you come in?
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: *The Gate BBS*Shelby, NC USA*thegateb.synchro.net* (1:3634/27)

Cattle play a colossal role in climate change: As the single largest agricultural source of methane, a potent planet-warming gas, the worlds 940 million cows spew nearly 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissionsmuch of it through belches and droppings.

And, yet, the Tree Huggers want us to get our protein from beans to reduce methane emissions.

Some want to go a step farther and eliminate most all farming by having us
"eat ze bugs." The ones that really grow large enough to be much of a meal grow in areas where, you guessed it, there is a lot of farming. So less farming = fewer bugs.

I liked how the story also pointed out where fertilizer comes from, and
what it takes to artificially create it. Sounded to me like the net
benefit would be somewhere near zero.


* SLMR 2.1a * Presented for your approval...
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

But the goal is always toward control of the population. And not having enoug
food is an effective method of control.

I an wondering, too, if part of it is to get Americans to eat less meat so
that the Chinese have more to eat. Hence my mention of them owning farms
and meat packing companies in the USA. They bought up Smithfield in 2013.
I wonder which administration allowed that?


* SLMR 2.1a * Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

So although the livestock industry produces a "huge" amount of greenhouse gas, getting rid of it only eliminates 2.6% of said gasses. I wonder how much money the government is "investing" in all of these studies in order to eliminate 2.6% of greenhouse gases.

The benefit isn't reducing greenhouse gases, the benefit is getting off on controlling large quantities of humans.

Since the globalists are already so successful in making people think that Jews are bad, and that Trump is bad, why not see if it's possible to get them to eat bugs?

When Democrats put the final nail in democracy's coffin, and when socialist food pick-up day arrives, it will be "more economical" to hand us a box of bugs than to hand us a box of beef products.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)

Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

Some want to go a step farther and eliminate most all farming by having
us "eat ze bugs." The ones that really grow large enough to be much of
a meal grow in areas where, you guessed it, there is a lot of farming.
So less farming = fewer bugs.

I liked how the story also pointed out where fertilizer comes from, and what it takes to artificially create it. Sounded to me like the net benefit would be somewhere near zero.

It's zero.

To farm bugs for food would take just as much energy, use the same amount of land, and produce the same amount of waste.

None of these ideas are to "save the planet". They are to reduce our freedom and control us.


... What was the best thing BEFORE sliced bread?
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

I an wondering, too, if part of it is to get Americans to eat less meat
so that the Chinese have more to eat. Hence my mention of them owning farms and meat packing companies in the USA. They bought up Smithfield
in 2013. I wonder which administration allowed that?

Since most of that occurs through shell companies and 3rd parties, I'm not going to be too quick to point the finger at someone. Obviously, if someone dug a bit, they would see that it's China behind the scenes. But unless there's a warning sign, no one will dig.

IHMO: The Chinese buy up is a way to prop up their failing economy - for the short term. But that's normal for Communist countries.


... Include this in your CONFIG.SYS File: BUGS=OFF
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

It's zero.

To farm bugs for food would take just as much energy, use the same amount of land, and produce the same amount of waste.

None of these ideas are to "save the planet". They are to reduce our freedom and control us.

I still believe there is an "and China" part to that equation.


* SLMR 2.1a * Pass the tequila, Manuel...
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I an wondering, too, if part of it is to get Americans to eat less meat so that the Chinese have more to eat. Hence my mention of them owning farms and meat packing companies in the USA. They bought up Smithfield in 2013. I wonder which administration allowed that?

Since most of that occurs through shell companies and 3rd parties, I'm not going to be too quick to point the finger at someone. Obviously, if someone dug a bit, they would see that it's China behind the scenes. But unless there's a warning sign, no one will dig.

In this case, there was not a shell company involved. A Chinese company
bought it up all in the open. Of course, all Chinese companies are at
least partly owned by the CCP. That may be the part that some US citizens didn't realize then, but I can guarantee our government knew it.

It didn't get much press until COVID hit, though.

IHMO: The Chinese buy up is a way to prop up their failing economy - for the short term. But that's normal for Communist countries.

Could be, but they are producing meat for export back into their country.


* SLMR 2.1a * A distant ship, smoke on the horizon....
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

None of these ideas are to "save the planet". They are to reduce our

freedom

and control us.

I still believe there is an "and China" part to that equation.

You got that right. China needs a way to prop up its economy before it completely falls apart.

We could always have a cold war. That worked well with Russia. It took a while, but it finally collapsed under its own incompetence.


... It's tagline poker. Can you beat EIGHT aces...?
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-

In this case, there was not a shell company involved. A Chinese
company bought it up all in the open. Of course, all Chinese companies are at least partly owned by the CCP. That may be the part that some
US citizens didn't realize then, but I can guarantee our government
knew it.

Ya, they aren't covering things up anymore. Why should they? Sleepy Joe and his crime family won't do anything.

Could be, but they are producing meat for export back into their
country.

Seeing how much China controls the information flow, if we start seeing signs that their economy is having problems, then it's having REALLY big problems.


... You are an example of why some animals eat their young.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Seeing how much China controls the information flow, if we start seeing signs that their economy is having problems, then it's having REALLY big problems.

I agree. Sort of like how they didn't have hardly any COVID cases for
about the first year.


* SLMR 2.1a * "My eyeballs nearly popped out!"
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)