Accepted that beef is responsibe for lots of greenhouse gas production, from the inputs to produce the grain that feeds (or just “finishes”) the beef, to the methane they burp up. Accepted that chicken has less GHG impact and vegetable sources of protein much less than that. Be that as it may. The question in this thread is comparing the GHG impact within the broad beef category. Health is also not a subject of discussion in this thread. If we need to standardize I can accept per unit of product but would prefer per unit of usable protein.
I get confused.
Grain fed requires energy intensive grain and grass fed is assumed by many to be environmentally freindly. But grass fed animals burp more methane and do it longer as they grow slower …
Veal production seems “wrong” to many but besides the fact that such is immaterial to the GHG question do dairy cows need to produce a calf each year to keep up milk production. They are to some extent what would otherwise be a waste product, capturing a point on the production curve before they are producing much methane and have gotten a fair amount of growth in.
Where does bison fall in the list?
Again, this is a request for GHG impact only. Not about which taste you prefer or which you believe to be the healthier choice.
I for one cannot find anything on line very believable or authoritative.
Methane production by ungulates is a natural enough thing. Been part of the carbon cycle for a long time. And there are about as many cattle in America now as there were bison then.
Getting rid of them would help mitigate the warming problem, but they themselves are not at all responsible for the problem.
As for feeding grain…not a good thing
(Biased but informative)
So most beef cattle are grass fed until taken to the horrid feed lot and given grain to fatten them up. If just left at pasture they would get just as big, but it would take an extra 5 months or so. So 5 months of grass induced cow flatulence saved by the feed lots.
But in exchange for those 5 months; lots and lots of grain, lots and lots of antibiotics, horridly unethical treatment of the cows, and a stench that can be smelled from 30 miles away. So I give a clear advantage to grass fed.
As for bison vs cattle on methane. Seems inconclusive so far, with an edge to bison.
As for cow vs chicken. Chickens are certainly more effecient at turning grain into protein, and do not produce near as much methane. Also, they do not damage the grasslands that sequester carbon. So from a warming standpoint, I think poultry wins. From an ethical standpoint…
I think most modern veal are fairly large before being slaughtered. They keep them tender by restricting movement, but are still near to grown. Probably the worst choice.
So all in all, I think backyard chickens are the best. No methane. Happy enough. Eat bugs and table scraps so do not need much grain. Eggs. Unfortunately also illegal in much of the U.S. Land of the free…where you can own an AR-15, but not a chicken.
.
.
Well trying to find some answers before asking here I already know your second claimis false.
Not claiming that beef is THE cause of climate change. The increase in global beef consumption though certainly contributes as A factor.
Grain and faster to the plate or grass and longer contributing methane? Yes that is one of the questions that I am looking for a factual answer to. Grain-fed can be (and should be) without any routine antibiotic usage but that is not the discussion here nor is the issue of ethical treatment of animals. Which is not stating that they are unimportant issues, just not the question asked. I am looking for an unbiased analysis of the impact counting all inputs per unit usuable protein.
Thank you for the bison link. So compared to grass fed beef at least the nod is apparently slightly to bison but only slightly. May vary for each if grain finished (which some bison is now too).
Again, as per the op, accepted that chickens are very efficient protein factories, and better yet vegetable sources on a GHG impact per gram protein basis. Not the question.
Your veal comment seems more a WAG or an IMHO … numbers and reliable cites please. I can make guesses all on my own. What I could not do was find any good believable analyses. Per wiki anyway crates are banned in some states and countries and being phased out elsewhere. Veal includes some harvested at a few days to a month old and some up to a year old, some fed a greater variety of feeds, and some free range living next to their mothers. What happens to the male dairy calf if not used for veal? How does that alternative compare to being used as pasture raised veal?
Did not look up stuff as I should have. Wikipedia says 60 million bison before 1492. But, there were also more antelopes and elks and other methane producers about.
As for veal, I used to go to church next to a veal farm, but you point out there is some considerable variation to what is “veal”
As to the rest…I thought the link covering grasslands and carbon sequestering and grain would be helpful.
Some actual numbers, not for veal per se, but veal as part of an intergrated “typical nongrazing dairy production system in Eastern Canada … as dairying generates both milk and meat, this study assessed several methods of allocating emissions between these coproducts …” Result was that only 3% of the GHG intensity was due to veal calves; calves under 12 months 10%; and lactating cows 64%.
Looks like veal as part of such a system (and it usually is) rates pretty well on the GHG front.
It seems cows fed prepared diets produce about half ad much methane as cows on the rough. But, if the table is correct, bulls produce FAR less than either. If true, getting ranchers to stop castrating would have some impact. (Getting ranchers to do anything is impossible though.)
Which table has that bull information? In any case, bulls are not raised for meat but for breeding purposes. Few of them kept around.
I appreciate their analysis. And indeed it makes sense that reduced age age at slaughter seems to make some carbon sense. Still it evaluates for direct methane emissions only … what I’d ideally love to see is an analysis that also rigorously factors in the GHG impact of the production of the feed used in the alternative scenario and a consideration of the methane being produced by the mother during the feeding process and other indirect impacts. I am not sure though even how it should be considered … a sunk cost given dairy production?
Here’s some somemore to throw into the mix both more comprehensive in their considerations. Does seem that younger age at slaughter with little time grass-fed is the “greenest option” … and that use of hormones is a good thing from the GHG analysis perspective.