Categories
BEEF MAGAZINE

Is climate science really real? Depends on who’s behind it


TAFC ClipBoard: The most obvious question to me when considering that fourteen percent of methane gas on the planet comes from burping cows, is what are they eating to make them burp and pass gas so much? I know they’re large animals, but the food they’re eating and the drugs they’re taking must have something to do with it.

I thought for a long time that animal rights organizations blaming the burps of cows for global warming was not a good strategy for reducing the human consumption of cows.

What if cows weren’t slaughtered for food or hides? Would animal rights people advocate killing them because they were causing global warming? Wipe out all the cows, and maybe all the other animals who pass gas that contains methane? Humans too? To keep the globe from warming up?

The mass procreation of animals for exploitation is producing abnormally high rates of methane, so sure stop raising cows for exploitation purposes. Don’t raise them at all.

I just don’t think that the warming of the planet should be blamed on the amount of gas animals expel.

The article makes the point that we don’t want to get rid of the wetlands because they contribute the most methane gas. I agree.

The conclusion would then be that we shouldn’t get rid of the cows either. I agree.

But we do get rid of the cows, we eat them – year after year.

Stop raising cows for slaughter regardless of the methane issue.

Next stop will be humans and exploring what groups, races, ethnicities pass more gas than others. sldt


BEGIN ARTICLE:

Is climate science really real? Depends on who’s behind it There’s been a lot of suspect science thrown around this election season. It’s time for beef producers to set things straight.

Burt Rutherford | Sep 16, 2020

Among the political talking points that has been spouted during this presidential campaign is that “science is real.” And it is—or at least real science is real. However, “science” advocated by activists and politicians is suspect, and its true objective is in pushing an agenda, not in seeking the truth.

That’s the battle we face as beef producers and that’s why it’s time to step up and make our voices heard.

BEEF Daily Editor Amanda Radke has been beating that drum for years and for BEEF Daily readers, you know that she has beaten that drum loudly the past two weeks. Here’s a little extra ammo to add to your talking points.

Among the many myths about cattle production that has been dethroned by real science is methane. A recent article published by the Beef Cattle Institute at Kansas State University provides some real science that sheds light on the issue.

READ: Log it, graze it or watch it burn

The article, titled “Cows are not the primary cause of recent increase in methane,” notes that atmospheric methane concentration increased 8 parts per billion (ppb) per year during the 1980s, 6 ppb per year in the 1990s, then remained static from 2000 to 2007. However, methane concentration has been increasing at 9 parts per million per year since then.

Ruminant animals certainly produce methane, but facts are facts—estimated enteric methane emissions have increased since 2000, but the global cattle population has remained constant.

So much for the “cows are the cause” argument.

Contribution to global methane emissions by various sources.

methane pie chart.png

Source: Beef Cattle Institute at K-State. Adapted from the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.

Based on the change in radio isotope ratio of atmospheric methane, the increase in methane emissions is likely from microbial sources. So where’s it coming from? “Wetlands are the largest natural source of methane emissions and methane emissions from wetlands have also been increasing since 2000,” the article notes.

READ: Mitloehner clears the air on fossil fuels, cattle and climate change

Global temperatures are rising. Are humans the main reason? That’s a discussion for another time. But the article notes that the largest methane growth rates occurred in the tropics and subtropics from 2014 to 2017, which had an average temperature increase of 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) warmer than the 1880-1909 baseline.

“Methane emissions from wetlands increase with increasing temperatures because of increased microbial activity, but the microbes in the rumen of cattle are at a constant 38 degrees C, (100.4 F) such that global temperature would not be affecting microbial activity in the rumen,” the article notes.

Here’s the bottom line: “Wetlands are the largest global source of methane emissions and are a major driver in atmospheric methane, especially with increasing global temperatures,” the article says.

Related: Beef producers must drive the conversation on cattle and climate change

Does that mean we should drain the wetlands? Absolutely not.

Here’s why: Wetlands are a vital part of a robust environment and provide habitat for a wide range of critters. They are an important part of your conservation efforts and should be encouraged and protected. Wetlands and ruminants have been producing methane for eons and the earth has a wonderful methane cycle that provides a self-cleaning mechanism for naturally produced methane.

So the next time you hear that cows are the cause of increased methane emissions, feel free to step up and make your voice and the facts known.

Source: Is climate science really real? Depends on who’s behind it







Categories
BEYOND MEAT IMPOSSIBLE FOODS NET NEWS

Impossible Foods CEO slams ‘the most destructive technology on Earth by far’

Impossible Foods CEO slams ‘the most destructive technology on Earth by far’

Daniel Howley

Technology Editor

January 8, 2020, 1:27 PM EST

Impossible Foods unveils plant-based pork and sausage

Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown is bringing the heat to CES 2020 in Las Vegas, America’s biggest consumer tech trade show. The head of the plant-based meat company not only debuted two new products, a ground pork and pork sausage alternative, but slammed the meat industry in an interview with Yahoo Finance, calling it “the most destructive technology on Earth by far.”

The company’s ultimate goal is to completely replace animals as a form of food by 2035.

Impossible Foods already offers a beef alternative in its Impossible Burger, which uses plants and includes a soy-based heme protein, which gives the burger the faux blood that makes it “bleed.”

The new sausage offering goes on sale in January at 139 Burger King locations in various test markets across the U.S. There’s no word on availability for the ground pork offering just yet.

Impossible’s latest move comes as the fake meat wars continue to heat up. The company’s biggest competitor, Beyond Meat (BYND), went public in 2019 and saw its stock skyrocket from its IPO price of $25 all the way to $234 in July, before settling back down to $83.89 on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, Impossible told Reuters it’s no longer seeking a deal to supply McDonald’s (MCD) with its Impossible burger due to supply constraints. Beyond Meat’s shares jumped on the news.

Holding the meat industry’s feet to the fire

With beef and pork alternatives already on the table, Brown says that chicken and turkey alternatives, as well as other plant-based meat options, are on the way.

Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown holds up an Impossible Burger 2.0, the new and improved version of the company’s plant-based vegan burger that tastes like real beef, at a press event during CES 2019 in Las Vegas, Nevada on January 7, 2019. – (Photo by Robyn Beck / AFP)

“Again the thing that you just have to remember to anticipate everything Impossible is going to do is that our intention is to completely replace animals as a food production technology, the most destructive technology on Earth by far,” Brown said. “And that means that any product that we’re currently producing using animals, Impossible Foods is already working on, and will commercialize a plant-based, a better, more delicious, more affordable, vastly more sustainable version of that product.”

Brown’s claims of the impact of the meat industry on the environment aren’t unfounded. There have been several studies linking meat to everything from climate change to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Which is why, he says, Impossible Foods is so important.

Beyond Meat offers a similar reason for its products’ existence, naming the meat industry’s impact on the environment as an example of why plant-based alternatives are necessary.

“It’s a very important problem to solve,” Brown said. “Pork production is actually a big public health issue, because there are actually more antibiotics fed to pork, to pigs, than to all humans. It’s a major source of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.”

While there’s been a lot of discussion about the meat industry’s impact on climate change through methane produced by farm animals, Brown says Impossible Foods is focusing on more than just how the climate itself is affected.

“Of course, it’s not just about climate, it’s about global biodiversity, it’s about water resources, water pollution, and so forth,” Brown said. The nutritional impact of plant-based meat alternatives has also been a major sticking point for the companies. And while they have a lower amount of saturated fat than their animal-based counterparts, plant-based burgers like Impossible’s do have more sodium than beef.

But Impossible’s pork products won’t help anyone if they don’t taste good. Fortunately, for Brown, after I tried a soft-shell corn taco with the company’s ground pork offering, I can report that the taste of Impossible Foods’ faux pork is as close to the real thing as you can get.

It’s not dry, and even browns similar to pork. If I didn’t know it was plant-based, I wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference. In our own Yahoo Finance taste test last fall, Impossible’s burger outshined Beyond’s by a slim margin.

As for the pork, we’ll just have to wait and see how the rest of the world feels…

Source: Impossible Foods CEO slams ‘the most destructive technology on Earth by far’