Can't read a paywalled article (pls repost with gift link if possible), but this is not surprising because over 80% of beef GHG emissions come during the GRAZING phase of production (as enteric methane). Cattle emit less enteric methane when eating grain. See Parts III-IV: https://medium.com/@jongelbard/gelbard-sustainablebeef-series-9bc2a84820a5
You’re not showing anything other than the poor presentation methodology I initially objected to. But at least you seem to have a little more wherewithal than the majority of reposters and the article author talking about the paper off context.
Not surprisingly, but what about the impact on biodiversity and other ecosystem functions (besides carbon sequestration), for example of soymeal production to feed cattle?
Right? Look at all the folx who just blindly accepted the headline as if it was an obvious conclusion without questioning the context or findings?
Now they’re gonna go parrot it and the game of non science telephone begins.
This sort of overstatement article is harmful to scientific literacy.
Ya…countered by a study funded by Nestle? Pardon me while I laugh…. Like they don’t have a vested interest in stopping cattle grazing… 🤦♂️. Nice try yourself 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The review of Quantis’ report on White Oak, was conducted BECAUSE Nestle had worked with Quantis before; on a report suggesting that plastic bottles in national parks was ecologically benign.
As you clearly demonstrated to us when you failed to both read and understand the review…which clearly shows that Nestle worked with Quantis. Quantis being the institute that did the research on White Oak Pastures.
Comments
It’s important to say the whole conclusion, not just the truncated sound bite.
Let’s talk about the benefits to the phosphorus peak problem from rotational grazing on non arable land…
The paper tackles both arable and non-arable land and the points do not skew in your favour
I assume you worked for the tobacco companies when they were pushing the health benefits of smoking?
Now they’re gonna go parrot it and the game of non science telephone begins.
This sort of overstatement article is harmful to scientific literacy.
We need to demand fossil fuel companies stop writing hit pieces on ag.
https://civileats.com/2021/01/06/a-new-study-on-regenerative-grazing-complicates-climate-optimism/
There’s a full review right here, but nice try farmer Joe…
https://sentientmedia.org/another-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef/
The review of Quantis’ report on White Oak, was conducted BECAUSE Nestle had worked with Quantis before; on a report suggesting that plastic bottles in national parks was ecologically benign.
It’s clear where your bias lies farmer Joe.
You shot yourself in the foot.