Agnostic.com

2 0

Considering they’re small contribution to the global warming picture and the fact that they’re one on the few animals capable of converting the millions of acres of grass on land unsuitable for farming to something tasty and healthy why have they became a primary target in the Green New Deal?

Trajan61 8 Feb 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Nothing better than a great steak! Since I heard of the New Green Bru haha I increased my steak intake significantly.

zesty Level 7 Feb 27, 2019

Steaks are quite tasty! ??

1

Most of your claims are patently false. The carbon budget of cattle and dairy ranching is significant. I worked for NASA in 2010 measuring the methane and ethane output of these industries. Piles of cattle feces in dairies farms and feed lots outgas significant methane. Piles of feed corn on site ferment and outgas ethane. Cattle outgas lots of methane.

  1. Cattle ranching has been the chief cause of the degradation of lands in the west. Historic overgrazing has changed environments and habitats. Runoff and downcutting of channels was increased, significantly, after the introduction of cattle to an area. The presance of invasive species (fields of prickly pear cactus) throughout the west are signs of ovrrgrazing. The grasslands you refer to are not the original grasslands. They are replacement grasslands as result of overgrazing (not native species). Example: The San Pedro River cut down over 30 feet in just the first few years after introducing cattle to the Arizona desert. More 10X more downcutting prior to introduction. Soil erosion and so depletion are a direct result of overgrazing.

The presance of invasive species (fields of prickly pear cactus) throughout the west are signs of ovrrgrazing. The grasslands you refer to are not the original grasslands.

  1. Tremendous amounts of pristine rain forest are being cut down to turn it into grasslands for grazing. The grasses do a lot less of carbon dioxide conversion and oxygen release than do the native forests.

  2. Beef is the most expensive food to produce on the planet. The amount of biomass that goes into producing a beef steer is greater than any other type of meat. Its is also labor intensive to get from field to market.

You are a very misinformed individual. Almost all of the land except the low bottoms was originally grassland except that which should never have been broke out and has been returned to grass because it was unsuitable for farming. People like you who think you know it all are a threat to my livihood and to the country as well. Before we had cattle we had 66 million buffalo. Now we have some 90 plus million cattle. There are a lot of greater threats to the environment than cattle.

@Trajan61 Im not the misinformed. Just because you want to be so doesn't make ot so. On e again, anecdote by denial over fact.

Buffalo moved and migrated continually giving their rangeland time to recover. We know this to be a fact. The migration routes of historic buffalo herds had a migration cycle following the seasons over hundreds of miles, not acres.

Cattle are usually retained on a limited range eating it over and over, not allowing it to recover. Some intelligent ranchers are now understanding about rotation. It has returned to grass, but not the indigenous varieties of grass that belong there. The grasslands of today are a scant representative of what the original prairie was originally. The modern habitat is much less diverse and healthy as the original tall grass prairie prior to cattle ranching.

@t1nick your points are true, but nite, they are falling on deaf ears of individuals who don't really give a damn about the future or about the truth. Their argument on already grass lands is BS for much of the planet as humans started agriculture. Just imagine the Americas pre Europeans, much less pre, now, indigenous people.

@t1nick My pastures are not overgrazed and are covered with lush mostly native and improved grass’s so what are you talking about? Farming on the highly erodible land is what causes the most erosion, not cattle ranching.

@t1nick Since your so apposed to using cattle to utilize all these grasslands which are unsuitable for farming what do you purpose we do with them?

@DarrelScott I agree.

@DarrelScott. Your comment doesnt make sense. Carbon dioxide is a molecule, not a plant. It is a byproduxt of a chemical reaction. Cattle are not a necessary part of any ecosystem. They are a humanly domesticated animal from a previously indigenous form. The planet would not suffer in their absence.

Yes carbon dioxide levels fluctuate, but evidence abounds that human use of fossil fuels and other activities like cattle ranching have elevated the levels much more quickly and to higher levels than is safe for the planets well being.

The push back about climate change, including cattle ranching has nothing to do with wanting to control of the masses. Its more about making sure that their is a healthy planet for your grandchildren and their grandchildren.

@DarrelScott, @Trajan61. im hlad you do not overgraze. But its not true of all ranching. Better now than in the historical past. Yes agriculture has done its share of destroying the environment.

@DarrelScott I teach high school biology, college geology and college chemistry. I have observed the data firsthand. I have worked fot NASA measuring greenhouse gasses. I worked with the Univrr3sity of Arizona reconstructing paleoclimates from obtainable data.

Your observations are held by a very small contingency of scientists, less than 10%, most of which are employed by the fossil fuel industry. The raw data is overwhelming in favor of the scientists backing climate change.

It has nothing to do with mass population control. That just paranoid rationalization.

@t1nick Since your so apposed to the cows how do purpose we use all these highly erodible grassland that are unsuitable for farming?

@TheAstroChuck Trajan and I are on opposite sides of the argument. I'm not sure how you are conflating the two of us together?

@TheAstroChuck Fringe science

@t1nick sometimes it prefills two names when you hit reply. I have to manually delete the extra name. Im guessing that is what happened here

@Lucy_Fehr ok. Thanks

@TheAstroChuck understand. Thanks. Trajan and Darrell have similar stances.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:299804
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.