• usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    EDIT: also why do you keep using random imgur links as source with no context as to their origin and a lot of low quality random blogs. More links does not mean more correct. This all smells a lot of like gish gallop

    It still take more human-edible feed than it produces out. From the same study that produced the cited figure:

    1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013

    For the claims about sequestration

    There’s not been a single study to say that we can have carbon-neutral beef

    […]

    We also have to ask how much of the sequestered carbon in these systems is actually due to the cattle. What would happen to the land if it were simply left fallow?

    The answer is, depending on the land, and on the kind of grazing, it might sequester even more carbon

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/10/03/beef-soil-carbon-sequestration/

    And good luck scaling up grass-fed production even if it did sequester more

    We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

    […]

    If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401

    And it is perfectly healthy

    It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/