[ad_1]
Pali a many ways to describe the cow hunk. Look in the grocery store at a grocery store in the United States and you will be provided with animal descriptions that describe your dinner delivery: Angus, no antibiotic, hormone-free, grass-fed, vegetarian-fed, and so on. But soon you may see another, more intriguing explanation, on the subject: less air.
In November, the US Department of Agriculture approved the program which will pave the way for meat producers to sell their meat as carbon low. Farmers who can ensure that their cattle are raised in a way that emits greenhouse gas emissions are 10 percent higher than those of start-up companies to meet the certification system, which is run by a special company called Low Carbon Beef.
This is the first time that the USDA has approved this type of cattle license, and it will make it easier for manufacturers to finally claim that their products are more environmentally friendly than their competitors. “When you go to a zoo, you never know if a kilogram of hamburgery produced more air than a pound of hamburger,” says Colin Beal, a former meat grower and founder of Low Carbon Beef. Beal says some small-scale manufacturers have already been certified by his company, although requests for low-carbon beef must go beyond USDA-approved procedures. A USDA official said the agency had not yet received such forms.
But some scientists are concerned that such labels may mislead consumers by trivializing the climate of the herd. Beef has one of the largest carbon footprints in the diet. In 2018, meteorologists Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek released a global report greenhouse gas analysis smoke about making 40 ordinary foods. Beef comes out on top: For one gram of protein, a cow produces six times as much air as a chicken, six and a half times as much as a pig, and 25 more often than soy. Even lamb, which is second only to the Poore and Nemecek studies, produces less than half the amount of cow’s air per gram of protein.
Meat carcasses must be twice as much carbon dioxide as can be obtained by a consumer, says Matthew Hayek, a natural scientist at New York University. “The purpose of the brand is to communicate exactly with consumers,” he says. The low carbon footprint “means that it is less carbon dioxide than anything else it can absorb right away.” In most cases, for cattle, this may not be true.
There is also the question of where to place the benchmark for a low-fat cow. Farmers who want to be certified need to provide more information on how their cattle were raised, and Beal Company uses this data to compare the amount of carbon dioxide affected by the birth of cattle from birth to slaughter. If the analysis shows that emissions decreased by 10 percent compared to the Low Carbon Beef benchmark, then the cow can be proven to have reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Manufacturers may use this certificate in support of their advertisements, which must be approved by the USDA. The organization uses similar programs to address many of the words found in animal texts.
To meet its demand, Low Beef requires the animal to have 10 percent less than 26.3 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent to one kilogram of meat weight – a method of reflecting greenhouse gases that takes into account air temperatures such as methane. But this may be a bit on the big side: A 2019 courses Cattle production in the US found that it produces about 21.3 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent to one kilogram of animal weight.
Karen Beauchemin, a cattle feed specialist at the Canadian Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, also noted that the Beal signal appears to be very high: In Canada, the average carbon dioxide is killed by about 19 kilograms of carbon dioxide per kilogram. weight of animals. Higher signals mean that more farmers find themselves in the middle of a 10 percent Low Carbon Beef, which would reduce the incentive for farmers to reduce their carbon emissions.
[ad_2]
Source link
