Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Food 52)   "Cheese - the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." Or something like that   (food52.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Milk, Carbon dioxide, Dairy, Climate change, Cheese, threat of climate change, Cheese Summit, Dairy farming  
•       •       •

378 clicks; posted to Food » on 04 Oct 2022 at 9:05 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



15 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-10-04 9:29:49 AM  
images.squarespace-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 9:48:55 AM  
c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 10:04:45 AM  
Cheese; the crack cocaine of dairy products.

See how the users justify their substance of choice?

/as a fellow user, I'm okay with this.
 
2022-10-04 10:25:21 AM  
I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert, but if you're using carbon sequestration to capture emissions in the soil, does that not mean you can't till that soil because doing so would release the carbon?

The half life of Cabon-14 is 5,700 years. So if you're trapping carbon in soil that you can now no longer till, do you not need a constant supply of soil to keep you going?

How much carbon can the soil actually hold?

Again, I'm no expert.
 
2022-10-04 10:38:13 AM  
c.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 10:38:47 AM  

Rev.K: I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert, but if you're using carbon sequestration to capture emissions in the soil, does that not mean you can't till that soil because doing so would release the carbon?

The half life of Cabon-14 is 5,700 years. So if you're trapping carbon in soil that you can now no longer till, do you not need a constant supply of soil to keep you going?

How much carbon can the soil actually hold?

Again, I'm no expert.


It works, more or less, like growing a forest does.  You don't till grasslands used for grazing, so grazing depleted land restores the top soil, capturing carbon, until it becomes fully restored and reaches full saturation.  At which point you are just cycling atmospheric carbon through grass/cows.  So restoring depleted soil can capture carbon, just like restoring forest can capture carbon, up to a point.  Grassland and forestland store roughly the same amount of carbon.

The issue is that covering the earth in either grassland or forests doesn't really matter because the carbon capacity is limited to what the biosphere can hold in an instant of time while the carbon released by burning fossil fuels represents millions of years worth of Earth's carbon that was buried deep underground separated from the biosphere.
 
2022-10-04 10:51:47 AM  

johnny_vegas: [images.squarespace-cdn.com image 600x600]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 10:55:18 AM  

Beta Tested: It works, more or less, like growing a forest does.  You don't till grasslands used for grazing, so grazing depleted land restores the top soil, capturing carbon, until it becomes fully restored and reaches full saturation.  At which point you are just cycling atmospheric carbon through grass/cows.  So restoring depleted soil can capture carbon, just like restoring forest can capture carbon, up to a point.  Grassland and forestland store roughly the same amount of carbon.


Ah, I see.


And yeah, I wondered that too. So the grassland is storing carbon, great. But all the cows, that are still needed for cheese production, have to eat grass grown on that land and will continue to spew flatulence into the air causing warming.
 
2022-10-04 10:58:32 AM  
i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-04 11:56:22 AM  

Rev.K: Ah, I see.


And yeah, I wondered that too. So the grassland is storing carbon, great. But all the cows, that are still needed for cheese production, have to eat grass grown on that land and will continue to spew flatulence into the air causing warming.


Well not exactly, the flatulence they spew is made from the grass they eat which is made from the carbon in the air, so that part is basically neutral.  The roots that become topsoil is what is sequestered.  But once the roots are unable to create more topsoil (there is an effective limit to how deep topsoil will get based on environmental conditions) then they also just rot and become atmospheric carbon again.  None of this process meaningfully contributes to global warming.

Drastically oversimplifying of course.
 
2022-10-04 3:26:51 PM  

johnny_vegas: [images.squarespace-cdn.com image 600x600]


Erika! She's awesome
 
2022-10-04 6:49:42 PM  

Beta Tested: Rev.K: Ah, I see.


And yeah, I wondered that too. So the grassland is storing carbon, great. But all the cows, that are still needed for cheese production, have to eat grass grown on that land and will continue to spew flatulence into the air causing warming.

Well not exactly, the flatulence they spew is made from the grass they eat which is made from the carbon in the air, so that part is basically neutral.  The roots that become topsoil is what is sequestered.  But once the roots are unable to create more topsoil (there is an effective limit to how deep topsoil will get based on environmental conditions) then they also just rot and become atmospheric carbon again.  None of this process meaningfully contributes to global warming.

Drastically oversimplifying of course.


This is, of course, false, for reasons I'm pretty sure I recall pointing out to you in a previous thread.
 
2022-10-05 12:41:43 PM  

Ambitwistor: This is, of course, false, for reasons I'm pretty sure I recall pointing out to you in a previous thread.


If by "point out" you mean saying irrelevant stuff that in no way contradicts what I said, then sure.

Cow tummies don't burn fossil fuel no matter how badly you seem to want them to.
 
2022-10-05 12:54:49 PM  

Beta Tested: Ambitwistor: This is, of course, false, for reasons I'm pretty sure I recall pointing out to you in a previous thread.

If by "point out" you mean saying irrelevant stuff that in no way contradicts what I said, then sure.


To the contrary, everything you said about carbon neutrality is true but irrelevant, because the methane that cows contribute to the climate is carbon neutral, but not climate neutral.  Which both contradicts your false statement "none of this process meaningfully contributes to global warming", and is thereby entirely relevant.

(There's also the fossil fuel contribution of the supply chain for beef, which is not relevant to the argument you made in this thread, but was relevant in the other thread, where you were making broader claims about beef production in general and not just carbon neutrality.  Which you also ignored.)
 
2022-10-05 12:56:41 PM  

Beta Tested: Ambitwistor: This is, of course, false, for reasons I'm pretty sure I recall pointing out to you in a previous thread.

Cow tummies don't burn fossil fuel no matter how badly you seem to want them to.


Also, you're being intentionally dishonest here, because you know I never made the argument that "cow tummies burn fossil fuel".  You never responded to the argument you did make, simply doubling down on your (undisputed, but irrelevant) carbon neutrality argument.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 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.