Labeling Beef ‘Low Carbon’ Could Open Premium Market for Wyoming Ranchers(cowboystatedaily.com)
cowboystatedaily.com
Labeling Beef ‘Low Carbon’ Could Open Premium Market for Wyoming Ranchers
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/07/labeling-beef-low-carbon-could-open-premium-market-for-wyoming-ranchers/
41 comments
I don't know why the article doesn't mention it but most of the product is already premium: it's grass fed (and often grass finished) beef. It's low carbon because the ranchers don't need to buy them much food, but it's not a sustainable alternative for most of the country.
The ranch I buy my annual half-cow from runs a sister ranch in Wyoming and they claim a 2:1 ratio of energy input to output in kcal simply because the cows roam. It's almost $5,000 for an XL whole cow though (compared to $2,000-3,000 elsewhere), so it's definitely an upmarket product.
The GHG cost post slaughter depends too much on customer specifics though. Shipping half a cow to a single customer California is a lot worse than shipping 10 tons of beef to a supermarket or a large group of buyers.
The ranch I buy my annual half-cow from runs a sister ranch in Wyoming and they claim a 2:1 ratio of energy input to output in kcal simply because the cows roam. It's almost $5,000 for an XL whole cow though (compared to $2,000-3,000 elsewhere), so it's definitely an upmarket product.
The GHG cost post slaughter depends too much on customer specifics though. Shipping half a cow to a single customer California is a lot worse than shipping 10 tons of beef to a supermarket or a large group of buyers.
> While the EPA reports the cattle industry in the United States accounts for 2.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions, some consumers are convinced that beef production is a major cause of climate change.
This seems to imply that cutting 2.4% of total greenhouse emissions wouldn’t have an impact on climate change. Motivated reasoning.
This seems to imply that cutting 2.4% of total greenhouse emissions wouldn’t have an impact on climate change. Motivated reasoning.
Isn't it wild that the only meat-producing industry that hasn't been completely vertically monopolized by the likes of Tyson or Smithfield gets 100% of the online wrath for its greenhouse gas emissions?
1) The beef industry has monopolistic, anti-competitive cartel behavior similar to the chicken industry. https://www.reuters.com/business/how-four-big-companies-cont...
2) Raising cattle has drastically higher emissions of greenhouse gasses than other animals. For instance, looking at the chart here: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane beef is 5x to 10x the emissions of chicken.
By my estimate, the online commentary about beef's contributions to the climate crisis feels pretty correctly proportional to their level of emissions.
2) Raising cattle has drastically higher emissions of greenhouse gasses than other animals. For instance, looking at the chart here: https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane beef is 5x to 10x the emissions of chicken.
By my estimate, the online commentary about beef's contributions to the climate crisis feels pretty correctly proportional to their level of emissions.
It wouldn't. Just like manufacturing moving out of the US didn't reduce smoke - it just moved it to China, these cattle will just be raised elsewhere. Except, now a few hundred thousand folks in the US are out of a job.
Yeah, it reads backwards. 2.4% of total greenhouse emissions just for one kind of food item sounds huge.
And just one kind of food from a single country which is only 4.2% of the world's population. That makes beef more than 50% of our "fair share" of emissions.
The wording is vague. It’s also possible read as 2.4% of total US emissions, not worldwide. Looking up other sources, it does seem to be 2-3% of total US emissions, not worldwide.
US beef is about 21% of all beef. A lot is exported. Fwiw
Yeah this is a tricky ploy to use language in bad faith.
Literally nothing is a "major" cause of climate change. There's so many things contributing to climate change that any one contributor can be made to look small.
The fact that the cattle industry in one country alone contributes to more than 1% of all greenhouse gas emissions is pretty insane in the context of the entire world.
Literally nothing is a "major" cause of climate change. There's so many things contributing to climate change that any one contributor can be made to look small.
The fact that the cattle industry in one country alone contributes to more than 1% of all greenhouse gas emissions is pretty insane in the context of the entire world.
2% of emissions within the US, not globally.
Every industry is trying to claim that every other industry is THE worrying source of GHG emissions. And every individual points out at the activities of others as being more polluting.
It is all a bit self-serving.
It is all a bit self-serving.
2.4% by weight or 2.4% of total global warming potential? Methane has a GWP of 30 (CO2=1).
> and if the rancher uses any anti-methane feed additives
If this effort reduces methane emissions in any meaningful way then it's useful.
> and if the rancher uses any anti-methane feed additives
If this effort reduces methane emissions in any meaningful way then it's useful.
Are there computations for calories-produced per GWP?
How does beef fare compared to something like turkey?
How does beef fare compared to something like turkey?
There is a lot to explore here (emissions per calorie, protein content, etc):
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions
> Ruminant cattle for beef and dairy rank high in greenhouse-gas emissions; monogastric, or pigs and poultry-related foods, are low.
I think it's all about the methane, for which cattle are notorious.
> Ruminant cattle for beef and dairy rank high in greenhouse-gas emissions; monogastric, or pigs and poultry-related foods, are low.
I think it's all about the methane, for which cattle are notorious.
[deleted]
If you switch to veggies, the 2.4% doesn't go to zero. Veggies have impact too. I think it was 30% reduction (overall, not just certain emissions)? Someone more informed can us know.
I wonder what bias the "Cowboy State Daily" has.
Interesting idea to jack up beef prices even more... So, having worked with a few ranchers out in Wyoming on the oil and gas side, I can tell you that in some cases the cattle have access to free water, but it ain't that good water you and I can drink. Produced water from oil and gas wells, depending on cleanliness at the well head, can be "land applied" and that is what some ranchers use. This water is a health hazard for us, but is supposedly fit for cattle. That water still evolves entrained gas and has some sort of rough minerals/chemicals for the body in it. I wonder if this is all getting captured by their calculations.
I agree with you that it would be better for cattle to simply never be born and to never live on Earth, than for them to have access to water of questionable quality.
This is in alignment with the perspective of the plant-based diet community, which holds that animals should not be born because then they might die.
This is in alignment with the perspective of the plant-based diet community, which holds that animals should not be born because then they might die.
This is just inventing a differentiated market labeling for ranched beef from the western US based on existing practice. It is a market positioning ploy for widely sold products that will have negligible impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
The "meat" of the article
> A USDA certification program for producers who demonstrate a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from their cattle below an industry baseline will earn them a certification that allows them to market their beef as low-carbon.
> A USDA certification program for producers who demonstrate a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from their cattle below an industry baseline will earn them a certification that allows them to market their beef as low-carbon.
I feel like the beef industry should have started selectively breeding based on gas emissions like 20 years ago. The people want less farty cows, so go engineer them!
What about human farts? Don't humans out number cows? And don't humans fart daily?
Shouldn't we instead focus on a diet that prevents humans from farting?
(Incidentally, I ate no calories from any plant-based source during all of 2021, and an interesting side effect that I noticed (other than spectacular overall health) was that I completely stopped farting. Others who have tried the all-meat diet have also commented on the fact that humans don't fart on an all-meat diet.)
Shouldn't we instead focus on a diet that prevents humans from farting?
(Incidentally, I ate no calories from any plant-based source during all of 2021, and an interesting side effect that I noticed (other than spectacular overall health) was that I completely stopped farting. Others who have tried the all-meat diet have also commented on the fact that humans don't fart on an all-meat diet.)
humans give off about 1L of flatulence per day, of which 5% is methane[1]. cows produce anywhere from 250 to 500L of methane per day[2]
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1648028/
2. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632...
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1648028/
2. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/73/8/2483/4632...
It is currently considered unethical to selectively breed humans (even for hilarious reasons like "to fart less"). It is not unethical to selectively breed non-human organisms.
You don't need to selectively breed humans -- you can just feed them the optimal human diet (100% animal-based). This would prevent 90% of chronic disease and also end all human farting.
Is this like "clean coal"?
Better, clean natural gas. If they were to capture the methane emitted AND use it to generate renewable electricity it should count twice towards reducing emissions.
I have heard some bollocks but this...
Yes. Let’s trick Mother Nature. I’m sure we’ll be fine.
Honestly, if everyone just ate only red meat then the greenhouse gas emissions from the healthcare industry (which dwarf those of the beef industry) would fall by 80%.
This idea that RED MEAT IS BAD is one of the worst ideas to have ever taken hold in the mind of a society. This anti-meat perspective/attitude is just poisonous.
This idea that RED MEAT IS BAD is one of the worst ideas to have ever taken hold in the mind of a society. This anti-meat perspective/attitude is just poisonous.
Quite the claim without a source - you're implying that almost the entirety of American healthcare costs are due to people eating vegetables, chicken, pork, fish?
No, I'm okay with people eating eggs, chicken, fish, and any other animal-based food.
Almost the entirety of the American healthcare costs are due to people eating ultra-processed food, which are rooted in grains and seed oils and sugar.
Just cut out every plant-based calorie from your diet and THRIVE.
Vegetables are not as bad as sugar, grain, and seed oils, but they're just full of fiber and anti-nutrients, so they're not beneficial to human health. Red meat also has more vitamins and micro-nutrients that vegetables, whose vitamins are in any case often not bioavailable.
It is honestly almost impossible to put the beneficial effects of the carnivore diet into words -- it would sound miraculous.
Just try it and see for yourself. (And note that it is the diet we evolved on).
Almost the entirety of the American healthcare costs are due to people eating ultra-processed food, which are rooted in grains and seed oils and sugar.
Just cut out every plant-based calorie from your diet and THRIVE.
Vegetables are not as bad as sugar, grain, and seed oils, but they're just full of fiber and anti-nutrients, so they're not beneficial to human health. Red meat also has more vitamins and micro-nutrients that vegetables, whose vitamins are in any case often not bioavailable.
It is honestly almost impossible to put the beneficial effects of the carnivore diet into words -- it would sound miraculous.
Just try it and see for yourself. (And note that it is the diet we evolved on).
The self-reported "low carbon" certification doesn't seem to include the GHG produced by growing and transporting the feed to the cattle, the cattle to the abattoir, running the factory, distributing the beef, though, does it? I could not find those numbers anywhere.
It also elides the other issues with beef, such as water and land-use. A kcal of beef is going to cost hundreds more gallons of water to produce than a kcal of vegetables. What about nitrogen run-off into ground water from feed lots?