Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   McDonald's is struggling to fix its massive methane problem. "Its," not "yours"   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Sustainability, Hamburger, McDonald's Corp., third of McDonald, variety of cattle-raising practices, much beef, cattle ranchers, McDonald's produces  
•       •       •

430 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Dec 2021 at 11:05 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



11 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-12-01 9:32:35 AM  
Realistically, the problem is "ours."

As long as beef is principally produced on feedlots and not grazing, there will necessarily be a substantially outsized environmental cost. Buy grass fed beef. Support rotational pasturing.
 
2021-12-01 9:34:24 AM  
Give me a couple if Big Macs and a couple of hours, I could solve that methane problem.....

Oh wait.......
 
2021-12-01 9:46:58 AM  
It wouldn't be "yours" anyway, subby. It would be "your."
 
2021-12-01 12:04:17 PM  
Seaweed must be off the menu. (https://phys.org/news/2021-03-seaweed-supplements-livestock-methane-emissions.html)

I love cheeseburgers, so hopefully they fix their problem.
 
2021-12-01 2:47:40 PM  

beezeltown: Realistically, the problem is "ours."

As long as beef is principally produced on feedlots and not grazing, there will necessarily be a substantially outsized environmental cost. Buy grass fed beef. Support rotational pasturing.


Grass-fed has other advantages, but measuring on methane emissions alone individual grass-fed cattle emit measurably more methane (from both ends) than do grain-fed cows.  If you needed the same pounds of grass-fed meat, methane emissions would go up not down.  And in theory, CAFO-fed cows could be easier to capture methane from than happy hill cows.

It's an interesting question, because our bovine methane emissions (at least in the US) aren't so much higher with 90 million domestic cows compared to 60 million wild bison in 1800. Brazil or Argentina.. different story. But, methane is a potent greenhouse gas and so, with all the CO2 we release through fossil fuel burning, controlling methane is one way to keep total warming in check.

/ all irrelevant if we burp the clathrates
 
2021-12-01 3:14:17 PM  
Are people really dumb enough to blame the company?

Do you think all those customers wouldn't just go buy the same product from somewhere else, resulting in probably even more harm? (since no one is as streamlined as McDumpster)

Blame the buyer. It's on them. Morons that blame gun manufacturers for murder. Or blame the current west coast crime wave on 'poverty and need' are just trying to make karma points taking the easy road.
 
2021-12-01 3:26:30 PM  

TheSubjunctive: beezeltown: Realistically, the problem is "ours."

As long as beef is principally produced on feedlots and not grazing, there will necessarily be a substantially outsized environmental cost. Buy grass fed beef. Support rotational pasturing.

Grass-fed has other advantages, but measuring on methane emissions alone individual grass-fed cattle emit measurably more methane (from both ends) than do grain-fed cows.  If you needed the same pounds of grass-fed meat, methane emissions would go up not down.  And in theory, CAFO-fed cows could be easier to capture methane from than happy hill cows.

It's an interesting question, because our bovine methane emissions (at least in the US) aren't so much higher with 90 million domestic cows compared to 60 million wild bison in 1800. Brazil or Argentina.. different story. But, methane is a potent greenhouse gas and so, with all the CO2 we release through fossil fuel burning, controlling methane is one way to keep total warming in check.

/ all irrelevant if we burp the clathrates


Measuring strictly in methane ignores "greenhouse gas" potential, overall. When cattle graze in grass, the turf and soil absorb a tremendous amount of greenhouse gases, overall. Manure management (in properly managed grazing/pasturing operations) returns nutrients to the soil, improving soil health.

Besides greenhouse gases, feedlot production of cattle requires massive amounts of corn, grown using fertilizers derived from natural gas. Intensive monocultures required to produce this corn is deleterious to the environment, increasing soil salinity and depleting aquifers.

Feedlots where cattle are finished are a literal "shiatshow," producing lakes of manure and damaging water quality downstream.

There are certainly environmental benefits when choosing grassfed over feedlot. Not to mention health benefits in the nutrition of the meat and obvious animal welfare advantages.  (Liver abscesses and constant need for antibiotics from a corn heavy diet is not particularly "friendly.")

From a pure climate perspective, it's a muddled picture (less finishing time versus turf-based sequestration). From a holistic environmental and human nutrition perspective, grass is easily the better choice.
 
2021-12-01 4:50:39 PM  

beezeltown: Realistically, the problem is "ours."

As long as beef is principally produced on feedlots and not grazing, there will necessarily be a substantially outsized environmental cost. Buy grass fed beef. Support rotational pasturing.


Reduce beef to once a month or year really.  Impossible burger is tastier, and the plant based options are improving every year. Something like 75% of farm land is used only to grow feed for livestock, and the ruminant animals produce some 25% of CC gas per year in the US.
We're not going to make it are we?
 
2021-12-01 9:13:56 PM  

Northern: beezeltown: Realistically, the problem is "ours."

As long as beef is principally produced on feedlots and not grazing, there will necessarily be a substantially outsized environmental cost. Buy grass fed beef. Support rotational pasturing.

Reduce beef to once a month or year really.  Impossible burger is tastier, and the plant based options are improving every year. Something like 75% of farm land is used only to grow feed for livestock, and the ruminant animals produce some 25% of CC gas per year in the US.
We're not going to make it are we?


I'm down to once or twice a month on beef. Poultry will be tougher to cut out for me. And I love sushi, but when every gas station has raw tuna, maybe we're pushing it. SO that's down to every couple of months. 

It sucks, but that's the world we live in now. At any rate, like my covid protocols, I'm terribly glad to have made sacrifices so farkwads can go out and chow down their burgers as if everything was normal.
 
2021-12-01 9:29:08 PM  
I thought it was Taco bell that had the massive methane problem.
 
2021-12-01 9:58:31 PM  

gerrychampoux: I thought it was Taco bell that had the massive methane problem.


HA! Because Taco Bell makes you fart! Holy shiat you should write for Fallon!
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.