Submitted by abercravest t3_102smbw in dataisbeautiful
Comments
CarryThe2 t1_j2wkhaw wrote
It's because on top of rearing the animal you also need to feed it. You can either grow X amount of calories for people to eat, or ten times that to feed a cow and get X amount of cow calories.
sharksnut t1_j2zad7a wrote
... or feed the cow agricultural waste like cotton seeds and almond husks.
babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j2wphnz wrote
It’s because they assume the most carbon intensive route possible at every step. They grow corn in Texas, ship it to Brazil to raise a cow, import water, and then ship the beef to New York. Of course it comes out to some absurd number.
That isn’t how most people actually get beef though. The beef I get comes from the cow eating grass in the field at the end of my street and the water comes out of the local well.
keziahw t1_j2y53p2 wrote
>That isn’t how most people actually get beef though. The beef I get comes from the cow eating grass in the field at the end of my street
Rural equivalent of "It's a banana, Michael"
onewobblywheel t1_j2vd3x3 wrote
None of the animal proteins, obviously.
Plant proteins -- beans for instance, or nuts, actively remove carbon from the atmosphere.
There's even a usable amount of protein in rice and other vegetables. One cup of beans, and of rice and of pretty much anything green, plus a handful of nuts, gives you more than enough protein for the day.
sendappreciateit t1_j2vdh5n wrote
Yup. People always overestimate how much protein they actually need.
Objective_Mark4325 t1_j2vsybt wrote
Many get more protein than the RDA of 0.8 grams per kilo of bodyweight (0.36g per pound of bodyweight). But the RDA can be seen as a minimum.
For people who exercise and try to build/maintain larger muscle mass the need increases. Studies often place their needs around 1.6g per kilo bodyweight, but higher amounts could be marginally useful. Athletes have even higher needs, and can consume 2g-3.5g per kilo bodyweight.
Lets say the average US american consumes 100g of protein per day. One average, that may be unnecessary high, but it all depends on your weight and exercise. I think people overestimate how much they exercise :)
Vrulth t1_j2wcv6l wrote
Rice farming is a major source of greenhouse gas...
onewobblywheel t1_j2wgnvc wrote
Which is still minuscule compared to beef farming.
Vrulth t1_j2wi76g wrote
Nope, rice farming is emitting less than beef, but it's not minuscule, around 4 times less, and it's a major source of emission worldwide. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/05/17/cows-rice-and-soil-are-key-to-farming-emissions-cuts/ (Start from here for more academic studies, but in short, rice farming is bad for the planet and so is rice consomption.)
onewobblywheel t1_j2xeop1 wrote
>around 4 times less,
Does that mean 1/4 as much? You're implying that a 75% reduction isn't a HUGE difference? Maybe "minuscule" was a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.
If we eliminate all rice farming (possibly the most widely consumed food in the world) what do we replace it with? Corn?
From the article: "rice contributes about 10% of emissions from the agriculture sector globally"
That sounds bad, right? But wait... "Rice paddies account for approximately 12% of the global croplands of the planet" -- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255623930_Rice_in_the_Global_Food_Supply#:~:text=Rice%20paddies%20account%20for%20approximately,%5B4%5D.%20...
So, 12% of our food production results in 10% of our emissions. That seems like rice is a below average emitter of carbon.
Check my math please.
CarryThe2 t1_j2wkd3a wrote
Thing is you also have to grow food for the cow. About 10 times as much as you get out.
Vrulth t1_j2x3wam wrote
Well rice is not grown for livestock feed.
GratefulOctopus t1_j2v2r5z wrote
Isn't it crickets?? Or other insect protein. Surprised that wasn't on the list
abercravest OP t1_j2v4kgy wrote
That's a good point. While it isn't common in the western hemisphere, insect farming appears to be well established elsewhere. Perhaps there was a lack of studies or the amount of protein produced simply didn't make the cut?
The study authors had this to say about their sources:
>We derived data from a comprehensive meta-analysis, identifying 1530 studies for potential inclusion, which were supplemented with additional data received from 139 authors. Studies were assessed against 11 criteria designed to standardize methodology, resulting in 570 suitable studies with a median reference year of 2010. The data set covers ~38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products representing ~90% of global protein and calorie consumption.
GratefulOctopus t1_j2v4ye3 wrote
Thanks for the info!! It's definitely some cool data regardless. Yeah I could definitely see it not being a primary source of protein yet, I just remembered hearing a ted talk about how insect protein is starting to gain momentum because of how environmentally favorable it is. But eating bugs is a little freaky so here we are.
Skylarkess t1_j2vkyuw wrote
Factory farming bugs isn't the solution. Plus there are problems with farming bugs. Its going to be novelty, and that will be the end of it.
GratefulOctopus t1_j2w36tj wrote
Thank you for sharing your opinion with absolutely zero information to back it up
Astronomicone t1_j2w5un5 wrote
Even if it’s better for the environment, getting people to willingly eat bugs is impossible for most people, so it doesn’t seem like a worthwhile avenue to go down for me personally
GratefulOctopus t1_j2wnaf5 wrote
Plenty of people around the world already eat bugs, it's a personal stigma/bias at this point. It is way better for the environment than most other protein sources (1% co2 compared to beef, 10% as much water, way less land sacrifice) and are very nutrient dense. If they're blended up and used as a food additive you literally would have no clue
Astronomicone t1_j2ww5jj wrote
Oh yeah definition it’s 100 percent social nonsense stopping people from doing it, but either way I have a hard time seeing people changing. Especially since at the moment the people who don’t want to eat bugs the most are usually from western countries and are part of the group that needs to be more mindful the most.
animatedb t1_j2zw9zf wrote
Ground up insects would be perfect to add to protein bars.
Here are some companies related to bugs: https://www.ventureradar.com/keyword/Insect%20Farming
SweetDick_Willy t1_j2v4meh wrote
Eggs, poultry, fish. In that order.
r/SavedYouAClick
plunki t1_j2v73ii wrote
But it doesn't say that? It's clear that reducing animal protein consumption results in the lowest emissions
SweetDick_Willy t1_j2v7mj7 wrote
You know what, I thought I read the word "meat" in the title. 🤔...not sure why my brain did that.
[deleted] t1_j2waug2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2vvfy4 wrote
[deleted]
glowdirt t1_j2vqsc4 wrote
Is there some reason the graph says "beef" and "lamb" but chooses to refer to pork as "pig meat"?
DameKumquat t1_j2vs15o wrote
Possibly because mutton and veal were counted separately? Or not counted.
abercravest OP t1_j2vt54b wrote
Probably because boar meat is not technically pork.
[deleted] t1_j2w5bft wrote
[deleted]
Quietly_quitting t1_j2w848f wrote
The bbc's chart shows carbon cost of farmed proteins.... so non-farmed proteins might be considered carbon neutral perhaps. That could be venison from deer herds culled to cut back numbers or other naturally (and sustainably) caught protein. Road-kill might be the lowest carbon :)
arcumnequi t1_j2waze4 wrote
Yes, and doing so would result in extinction of even more species than we already have caused, so... back to the drawing board?
Educational_Rule_424 t1_j2x7x1d wrote
Now a days hunters, at least in America, are pretty regulated to maintain herd size. I think we learned our lesson, but I don’t know the situation outside of America
junkman21 t1_j2xenkj wrote
I don't see rabbit on this list. Or crickets or grasshoppers, either.
Save-Ferris1 t1_j2v5iyw wrote
> According to the analysis, beef generates 49.9kg of CO2 equivalent, or CO2e, per 100g of protein.
For the Americans, thats 110lbs of CO2 equivalent for every 3.5oz of protein; that's less than a quarter pound. Cheese comes out to about ~24lbs of CO2 equivalent to the same 3.5oz.
Jesus Christ that's a lot. I've always been told animal protein was carbon intensive, but even if the numbers are over estimating by a gigantic amount, like 20%, those numbers are massive.