I think we and literally the entirety of the climatologist field needs to see some sources on how animals that take away sequestered carbon somehow sequester carbon themselves.
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.
So that’s a lot of nonsense, with no sources whatsoever that explain how carbon is wholesale destroyed in your mythology. It’s be amazing if the secret to the carbon cycle was a black hole that we can eat.
Sure. The cow is the flaw. It does not produce more carbon than it exhumes, due to entropy, but beyond that it itself is carbon based, therefore it inherently cannot sequester or aide in sequestering more carbon than it used to make itself.
If u read what i wrote then u would understand ur i completly missing the point. Cows eat grass which is atmospheric carbon and shit a majority of that out wich will be sequested in the soil. Entropy is concept relevent to energy quality or microstates. Im not talking about the cow itself im talking about the processing of grass (atmospheric carbon) the cow is doing acting as a machine in the proccess of carbon sequestation.
And you’re not understanding the machine itself takes by far most of that carbon which is released at a later point when it is slaughtered, not sequestered. It is released and wasted, most of it removed from the local cycle unless you Aussies are to the point of spreading human feces and butchers waste back on to fields.
No animal is a carbon sink. Some plants are, not grasses, but some plants can be. Some fungi might be. Animals are not.
But the carbon of the animal itself is a small percentage of the grass itself. Im not claiming the animap itself is a sink but the proccess the animal has upon the environment is.
I think we and literally the entirety of the climatologist field needs to see some sources on how animals that take away sequestered carbon somehow sequester carbon themselves.
Here is the explanation for beef:
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.
So that’s a lot of nonsense, with no sources whatsoever that explain how carbon is wholesale destroyed in your mythology. It’s be amazing if the secret to the carbon cycle was a black hole that we can eat.
Did u read it? Apply a little critical thinking and explain where the flaw is.
Sure. The cow is the flaw. It does not produce more carbon than it exhumes, due to entropy, but beyond that it itself is carbon based, therefore it inherently cannot sequester or aide in sequestering more carbon than it used to make itself.
Your math simply isn’t.
If u read what i wrote then u would understand ur i completly missing the point. Cows eat grass which is atmospheric carbon and shit a majority of that out wich will be sequested in the soil. Entropy is concept relevent to energy quality or microstates. Im not talking about the cow itself im talking about the processing of grass (atmospheric carbon) the cow is doing acting as a machine in the proccess of carbon sequestation.
And you’re not understanding the machine itself takes by far most of that carbon which is released at a later point when it is slaughtered, not sequestered. It is released and wasted, most of it removed from the local cycle unless you Aussies are to the point of spreading human feces and butchers waste back on to fields.
No animal is a carbon sink. Some plants are, not grasses, but some plants can be. Some fungi might be. Animals are not.
But the carbon of the animal itself is a small percentage of the grass itself. Im not claiming the animap itself is a sink but the proccess the animal has upon the environment is.