×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
1

Just want to point out that the climate scam declaration that cows are a net positive on carbon emissions is completely wrong. Large herd cattle and buffalo crapping and peeing in high density on the land makes the land much more productive for plants which absorb much more carbon dioxide from the a

submitted by Crackinjokes to technology 2.6 yearsOct 11, 2022 15:48:33 ago (+1/-0)     (technology)

Just want to point out that the climate scam declaration that cows are a net positive on carbon emissions is completely wrong. Large herd cattle and buffalo crapping and peeing in high density on the land makes the land much more productive for plants like dense grasses and trees which absorb much more carbon dioxide than if no herds existed.

That's if carbon dioxide was even a problem which we know it isn't but still to beat them on their own rationale you have to actually know the science about animals and land and grasses.

Without massive herds of animals such as cattle or Buffalo land becomes dry and desert and produces no plants which absorb no carbon dioxide from the air.

This fact has been belatedly recognized by people such as elephant herd researchers who erroneously thinned out elephant herds from Africa thinking they were over taxing the plants for the land and they found just the opposite. When there were less elephants there were less plants because the elephants weren't crapping and peeing all over the ground providing nutrients for the plants. When huge herds of cattle or Buffalo run wild over land in very high densities their hooves churn up the ground and their piss and crap fertilize the ground making it easy for plants to grow very quickly there. When the herds are not there the land quickly turns to desert. The least productive plants grow the slowest growing plants grow the ones that absorb the least carbon dioxide from the air grow. It's almost impossible for things like trees to grow in that environment. There's no layering and building up a peat which is decomposing grasses is they're replaced by the next season's grasses. And that Pete is what stores the carbon dioxide the most. It's the layers of the previous year's plants that lay down as the new plants grow on top of them that really stores tons and tons of carbon dioxide.

And none of that happens without huge herds of cattle and or Buffalo or other similar animals roaming the land.

So in fact if people actually cared about carbon dioxide being absorbed they should be letting huge herds of cattle run on every piece of vacant land everywhere in the world. And if they did that all of that land would quickly turn very productive it would cool that area and cause more condensation of water and rainfall which would add water to areas that otherwise become desert. And it would be absorbing tons and tons of carbon dioxide.


1 comments block

ill add to your post that if you took the manure from indoor large opertions like milk cows for example, and made biochar instead of letting it sit there offgassing, then incorporated said biochar into the ground, it would make the ground much more productive on top of that, while also allowing the soil to hold onto much more of the "liquid manure" that seeps down through the soil profile.

The entire "climate change" nonsense is bs, go look up a man named Joel Salatin, he has done a lot of work pioneering the rotational grazing method

America could sequester all carbon emitted since the industrial revolution in like, 2 states in the midwest if they wanted to, if it was "that important" by making big pens and moving cows around them...they don't.