Il manzo nutrito con erba produce non meno emissioni di carbonio che riscaldano il pianeta rispetto alla carne industriale, afferma il nuovo studio
https://www.euronews.com/green/2025/03/18/is-grass-fed-beef-better-for-the-planet-new-study-finds-its-not-so-simple
di Breezlife
20 commenti
That’s complete bullshit.
•The ground to grow tillage crops which are a major part of a beef diet has to be cultivated every year, releasing collosal amounts of Co2, the slurry which is produced in shed then has to spread mechanically on fields. Their entire diet has to be brought to them with machines. Even if you are feeding them fresh grass with a zero grazer, that’s a large tractor producing a lot of emmisons.
•Grass grows year on year and is amazing at sequestering carbon. The cattle walk themselves to food, no machinery needed to feed them. No machinery needed to agitate slurry and haul it to the field.
This is a non news American study spreadinh a false narrative, probably funded by some large beef lot with 1000s of cattle.
It’s better for the animals so fuck large scale industrial farming.
I love the quality of Irish beef and it can be so inexpensive.
I get a pack of two, 30 day aged, Rib-Eye steak for only 7.99€,400g in Aldi, I think they even won awards for it.
Have to find anotber a way of counter-acting the 300 new coal fired power plants China is building so.
There is a lot of industrial/factory beef produced here too. Beside me in Roscommon, there are several farms with a couple of hundred bullocks housed in sheds that never see grass.
Larry doesn’t mind.
We’ve known this for a while.
Slightly unrelated but does anyone here hunt or at least consume pheasant and wild game?
I’ve got pheasant literally walking up to the back door asking to be eaten. They are roadkill everywhere. They’re a non native, overpopulated nuisance with no carbon footprint and are lean amd healthy meat. Why aren’t we eating these fuckers and other wild game in general?
Same for wood pigeon and other birds. Same for venison.
There’s so much wild – very much “free range” food at our fingertips.
How about plants. All the carbon emissions that go into growing plants.
Not to mention the insecticides and herbicides sprayed on them.
If they’re good enough to kill bugs then don’t assume they’re doing nothing to you.
Imagine them feeding on the grassland is better for regenerate the top soil…a number of top scientists believe we are close to a doomsday scenario of top soil loss
Euronews is currently majority-owned by Alpac Capital, a company indirectly linked to the Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronews#:~:text=The%20network%20began%20broadcasting%20on,Hungarian%20government%20of%20Viktor%20Orb%C3%A1n.
Just a reminder that tobacco companies regularly fund biased ‘research’.
This is nothing different.
All ‘news’ has alterior motives. They don’t do it just because they love it, they get paid to do their job. Credibility doesn’t pay as well.
It’s so convenient that they found or funded a study to give them the results they wanted.
Amazing, who the fuck writes this shit.
We should put all the cows in multistory slaughterhouses and be done with it.
For cows, the gaseous emission of greatest concern should be methane, not carbon dioxide. Cows are terrible about turning stored carbon into methane, greatly magnifying its greenhouse potency. Studies have shown that certain edible seaweeds (specifically, red seaweeds) can be pelleted and added to cow feed, with the consequence of as little as 1% seaweed in food reducing methane output by as much as 97%. A number of edible seaweeds grow well in Irish waters, and there are currently trials underway to do large-scale farming of a few methane-inhibiting species specifically for this purpose.
[https://streamable.com/4cr5xs](https://streamable.com/4cr5xs)
This whole story is bullshit. They want to destroy small farmers. Why is importing beef from Argentina more carbon friendly or green? Why is the American model of steroids better. Eat Irish beef. Best in the world!!
This study used data from America and Mexico. Vastly different farming systems to what we have. Farming especially in southern America occurs on rangelands, which are grasslands but tend to be less productive.
Alot of these studies are context specific. This study has nothing to do with Ireland or the EU
Surprisingly, the authors declare no competing interests in the study.
However, the study is incredibly limited, especially when looking at it from an Irish perspective. I’ve posted some of them below. These are all from the introduction;
>Because geographical specificity and dependence on agricultural intensity are key, we model widely varied herds, from extensive operations on semiarid, marginal rangelands to partially industrial, intensive ones in lusher, more accommodating settings.
No full detail on what landscapes types they’re actually modelling. Ireland wouldn’t be classified as semi-arid, and our more lush environment is not industrial in American terms
>This evidence has two potential caveats. First, while it characterizes industrial beef, it may mischaracterize grass-fed beef which can use lands unfit for human food production other than ruminant meat, pithily “cattle eat what humans cannot.” Second, grazing may promote soil carbon sequestration (22–24), mitigating some of the high greenhouse gas emissions of beef (25–27).
Then we have this one that ignores the fact that certain climates, like the Irish one, is fantastic for growing grass and allowing animals to be outside for ~80% of the year;
>In addition, grazing is seasonal (45) in most geographies, which requires fossil fuel-based, CO2-intensive supplemental off-season feed—grain, hay, or silage—that elevates production emissions. Beyond emissions, these feeds also compete with human food production for high-quality cropland and often also for irrigation water and agrochemicals (46).
And why this isn’t particularly relevant to Ireland and out practices (bolded text is mine);
>We *focus on the United States*, primarily because of its relatively robust agricultural and carbon sequestration data coverage (62–64) and its global prominence in beef production and consumption (19) and in shaping dietary–cultural preferences (65). Nonetheless, as this focus only directly impacts chosen ranges of model parameters (Methods), and US beef ranching employs many practices that are used in other countries, *our findings likely apply broadly* to developed economies.
They basically can’t prove that what they’ve done is in anyway applicable to practices outside of the US.
The model that they’re using for all of this seems to be fairly loose, even by their own admissions.
>using a proxy that loosely tracks the above covariates
So all of this is to say that the study is only really relevant for practices carried out in the US.
The article for anyone interested https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404329122
Maybe not, but it’s still better for us and them.
Yes, but it’s still better for us, and frankly it’s better for the animals