• JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Hm. I would be interested to learn why, exactly. If it has terrible methodology, why is it constantly referenced and why hasn’t a better one been done since then?
    Or is there a better one that nobody just uses?
    And how should the data look, because most of every other source I can find also agrees that beef is the worst (or possibly on the second spot after lamb) as it comes to CO2 per kg.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don’t think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop “seconds”; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn’t credited to cattle, it’s counted against their total water use.

      that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?