• fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Zero emissions? I know people find it ha ha funny, but farts legitimately contain methane and other green house gassses.

    Cows for example are a large contributor of GHG

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      plus if we had as many horses as we did cars we would be living in a horse shit apocalypse.

    • 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This is complete bs.

      Tldr: cows in sheds eating corn is the problem, cows eating natural grass actually sequester more carbon than an empty field.

      Long answer: Photosynthesis can only get carbon from the atmosphere. This carbon is then turned into plant material in grass. This grass is then eaten by the cow. A small portion of this grass will be converted into methane and other byproducts in the cow’s digestive tracks. Some will be turned to energy for the cow and a vast majority will be shit out as raw unprocessed material. This raw unprocessed material, i.e. cow shit, this will last in the environment sequestering more carbon for longer time than just grass sitting there by itself. A grazed paddock will grow more grass than a non-grazed paddock because the cows are eating the fucking grass. i.e. more carbon from the environment is getting sequestered in the grass and the cow shit.

      The only reason that cows get such a bad wrap is that variouse other factors are being counted that really shouldnt be under cows. Deforestation to grow plants to feed livestock, the transportation of meat, livestock feed etc etc.

      A properly managed grass fed beef (like what we have here in australia) actually has a net negative effect on ghg. The factory farmed beef eating corn in a shed thats never seen a blade of grass is whats actually causing the ghg seen in the reports.

      We have already seen this narrarive been used to strongarm small farmers grazing cattle while the multinational farms get away with fucking the environment cos they can afford the cost of beurocracy.

      We are all just 3 warm meals away from anarchy thats something we should do well to remember.

      Ps. Its not “cow flatulence” its “enteric fermentation” (burps) cow farts just makes a better headline.

      Edit: formatting

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think you should’ve put TL;DR in the beginning, otherwise it looked like you’re arguing cows don’t fart, when you were actually about net effect.

        I never thought about it from this side, but it makes sense, and seems like another way big corporations fuck the world up.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I can’t believe my eyes, someone that isn’t spouting the usual bullshit about cows and GHG on Lemmy.

        I’ll be gobsmacked.

    • Godric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 month ago
      1. If you think a horse has the environmental impact of an automobile, I have a bridge to sell you

      2. Horses aren’t cows

        • Godric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 month ago

          I, uh, errr, uhhhhh…

          Motions vaguely at the four-legged animals

          They’re just different, trust me, okay???

          • AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            I dunno, I’ll have to do my own research on this one, my third cousin’s dog walkers nephew’s barber said he read a tweet declaring they were actually the same animal, just one ate more as a youth and has an accent due to the weight.

      • Mercuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        I mean you’re not wrong but no matter how small an impact it’s still not ZERO emissions, so the guy you’re replying to is technically correct.

        • Godric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 month ago

          Ah yes, good ole technically correct, the weakest and most schlubby shade of correct, whatever would we do without it?

          • Mercuri@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Actually, it’s the best kind of correct. But hey, don’t let all that butt hurt bother you. I hear there’s a cream for that.

            I love that I agreed with you and you STILL felt aggrieved, lol.

            • Godric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              Jokes on you, clown, I’m never butt-hurt, only butt-turned-on!

              Disdaining the “technically correct” pedants is freeing, try it sometime, you might like it ;)

      • Anivia@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Look at how much calories a horse needs per day, and then look at how much CO2 gets emitted to produce said food. Even the amount of CO2 a horse exhales per day is already significant.