I was going to say something more serious, but I really only want to remark that it's kind of weird you care so much about this corner case.

I buy it from a close by farm where they are doing pasture farming and are involved in carbon sequestration

I feel compelled (regretfully) to inform you that unless the farm you buy your beef from is taking a loss on the sale of the beef to compensate for the methane emissions, their operation is still carbon positive and likely requires even more land than conventional techniques, which could otherwise be used for more carbon sequestration via cover-cropping without grazing those cover crops.

Unfortunately, unless you're grazing especially fertile patches of north american praries, holistic management/regenerative farming is typically greenwashing

egetarian based which has a minimal impact on greenhouse emissions

This is demonstrably false,

even if you account for the land use and GHG consequences of each beef and dairy independently

Are you a vegan?

I don't follow

Sorry :(

From the article in Neuroscience about the 12 week experiment (CW clinical gore):

Long Evans rats mean life expectancy is about 3 years. This is one of the tamer experimental protocols, where the animals were not required to undergo terrifically disfigurative surgery to collect data or control conditions in vivo. I have great difficulty imagining how hard it would be to become even slightly attached to those animals and still complete the research duties.

no thanks,

Those beans are too far down the gullet to fart pipeline

Do we have a formal list of these somewhere?

It's probably safer (not that the bar is at a reasonable height to begin with) and I'm virtually certain it can carry standard drywall panels

"and he's going to do anything I tell him to do" might be powerful enough to resurrect UlyssesT

o7

That's an orthogonal injustice though, no? Collectively, our species massively overproduce food, so I would think the fact that there is a prior reason to be trying to cultivate land like this, which ought to be managed for native flora/fauna is a separate and solvable large scale land allocation problem, the solution to which frees whatever livestock use the argument excuses.

GOOD POST

not containing enough meat for a person to survive

That's weird. The amount of meat required for a person to survive is exactly 0 grams.

Amerikkka clocking in at just over 126kg/capita

enjoy that constipation burgerbrains

There's an element of truth here, in that parts of the world have a system where farm animals eat stuff humans can't, such as wild grass, kitchen waste and straw

The carbon, nitrogen, etc. contained in that grass, waste, and straw should be buried in/returned to the soil to grow plants instead of being farted into our atmosphere. Assuming the land in question is arable in the first place (which I think is valid if it's producing enough plant matter for grazing to be viable), if managed at all would produce more calories of human-compatible nutrition per calorie invested than harvesting of grazing animals on said land would.

Yeah you would think carnists (especially farmers) would understand feed conversion ratios, but alas