• ProfezzorDarke@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The other thing is that cattle needs much more space. From all the fields that we could use to grow food, a large part ends up as cattle fodder.

    • TauZero@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s about efficient use of land space, not related to GHG specifically other than tangentially regarding deforestation. Also elsewhere in this thread cattle was accused of being inefficient precisely because they sit in warehouses and eat cereals instead of grass. If cattle can roam pastures and eat grass, that’s an equivalent amount of cereals that did not need to be grown, farm machinery that did not need to run (on fossil fuels) to grow them, and a good amount of land possibly too hilly and rugged for any use otherwise put to productive human use through grazing.

      • tetraodon@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Too bad that’s not how it works. Because beef is profitable, ranchers have all the incentive slashing and burning rainforest to make more money.

        You subsidize this process every time you spend money on beef.