It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ketsuko
To be honest. Is it crazy that we could genetically modify proteins to make 'perfect' beef?
Is there any ethics of moral issues with lab farming beef?
originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: burdman30ott6
OK. AOC aside ... if you were given a blind taste test of GMO beef and farm raised beef and found the GMO beef to be better would you consider it?
The high rate of C sequestration observed in our study may be the result of the recent management intervention from continuous grazing to AMP in 2010 (Smith, 2014). However, we are unsure for how long this high rate of C sequestration may continue. Based on the 3.53 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 of C sequestered over a 9-year period in Wang et al. (2015), we expect that our soils could continue to sequester at this rate for several years. However, because soils that are further from C saturation will accumulate C faster than soils near saturation, and because our estimated soil C sequestration rate is much greater than the 0.41 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 indicated by Conant et al. (2003), we expect continued sequestration, likely to diminish over time (Minasny et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2007). Therefore, we caution about extrapolating the reported rates for an extended period. Continued collection of soil C data and monitoring of AMP grazing systems in the Upper Midwest will shed more light on the ultimate C sequestration and storage potential.
While it is unclear how long this effect will be observed, it is reasonable to hypothesize that it would continue, possibly at a reduced rate, for several years into the future.
Studies suggest that intensification of beef production systems would significantly reduce GHG emissions. However, as illustrated by this study in the Upper Midwest, under AMP grazing, more extensive (grass-based) but intensively managed beef finishing can deliver environmental benefits (such as soil C sequestration and other ecosystem services) with less environmental impact per kg CW than intensive FL finishing. While AMP grazing requires twice as much land than FL, if effectively implemented over a large area, total C sequestration in the Upper Midwest could increase substantially. This does imply less overall beef production in the region, albeit with greater environmental benefits from what is produced. Further, before AMP grazing can be realistically implemented across a large landscape, a concerted effort must be implemented to educate livestock producers on its benefits, as a great majority of the United States still employs continuous grazing for grass-fed beef production.
According to a 2013 Savory Institute report, if the method were used on “up to 5 billion hectares of degraded grassland soils,” it could sequester at least 10 billion tons of atmospheric carbon in soils—the approximate equivalent of five times the area of Europe taking up a year’s worth of global carbon emissions. The report further claims that this would lower “greenhouse gas concentrations to pre-industrial levels in a matter of decades.” Savory has been heavily criticized for lack of scientific rigor in these and other claims.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Phage
Cortez is furious
My sources say that she was so mad that she punched her "Hello Kitty" congressional back pack.