In a recent study, researchers from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE), and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) questioned the planned development of new nuclear capacities in the energy strategies of the United States and certain Eur...
NO2, methane from byproduct/digestion, soil carbon release from land overuse. Downstream methane release due to nitrate pollution.
The overwhelming majority of cropland is for "biofuel", industrial chemicals and animal feed.
Industrial scale regenerative agriculture has lower yields in the short term, but doesn't emit NO2 and leave behind a dust bowl (requiring clearing a new forest).
Eating crops directly rather than feeding cows is far more effective than changing fertilizer source. Eating organic crops uses a small fraction of the crop land that eating beef fed on intensively grown corn does.
Biointensive methods have many times the yield as industrial agriculture but are very labour intensive -- automating them would save a lot more emissions.
Precision fermentation uses a tiny fraction of the land per unit of protein/nutrients.
Eating crops directly rather than feeding cows is far more effective than changing fertilizer source.
cows eat a lot of grass, and usually from land that isn't suitable for crops. the silage they get is mostly parts of plants that people can't or won't eat.
Corn and soy grown for the purpose of large animal feed exceeds the amount of cropland used directly for human consumption in areas where <20% of calories and protein come from red meat.
what is fed to animals is the industrial waste from the oil processing. which is the comment i made that started your namecalling. i will accept an apology, but i will not tolerate any more insults.
Most of the revenue is the meal. Nobody would grow it for the oil.
Almost half of the oil is used for biodeisel. So even if it were exclusively for the oil (a lie) getting rid of 40% and getting rid of the meat would do more than green fertizer
Also all an attempt at distraction because humans could eat a plant grown there.
i think it's great that you cited a source that shows even as markets fluctuate over time, soybean oil punches far above its weight every year in the value of the crop.
it's crazy how much i've learned about soybeans, and never bothered to look into the numbers on corn. you'll forgive me if i look for my own sources though.
While some of the crop is used directly, more than 85 percent is further processed through crushing into soybean meal and oil. Soybean meal is typically used as an animal feed for its protein content
The meal is the main revenue source and the reason it's grown.
meal is the majority of the weight of the soybean, but oil is about half the value of the soybean while only being 20% of the weight. they don't process soybeans in meal presses: it's processed in oil presses.
almost no soy goes to cattle at all. calling me "paltering" while jumping from one segment of agriculture to another is just hypocritical rhetoric. try addressing the topic instead of characterizing me.
none of your insults have disproven what i said, and all the sources you've cited support what i've been saying.
your posturing doesn't help your case. humbly accepting that you didn't know all the facts about soy (just as i am still learning about corn) would do wonders for your perception though.