If you grow grass-fed meat instead of grain fed you eliminate most all of the net CO2 emissions. There are still gross CO2 emissions, but once you stop drivings tractors and making fertilizer, there's very little net impact of animals save perhaps the sequestering effects. Net CO2 emissions are from "extra" carbon going into the atmosphere, gross CO2 emissions are from CO2 emissions of recently sequestered carbon.

So burning wood from clearing brush in your backyard would be gross CO2 emissions, but burning gas in the chainsaw would be net emissions (at least until people start synthesizing fuel from CO2 and water).

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/in-defense-of-the-cow-h...

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss574

http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/39886

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep10892

https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-redu...

> Well, this is not really sheep I had in mind. I was thinking more of the free roaming - no owner - kind of animals.

Those animals too will not plan their reproductive urges around the environment so they will also tend to overpopulate and underpopulate in cycles. I don't really consider that caring, that's just nature taking its course.

> I completely do not get how my half-assed comment about sheep escalated to your comments about my education (or lack of).

If you want to be sarcastic, make it obvious. You made a lot of matter-of-fact statements prior, so why shouldn't I take it at face value? Show empirically that sheep do care, or say that you meant it sarcastically. Internet comments don't make it obvious that you're smirking.

I'd like to see grass-fed meat meeting the demands of 5 billion people.

No one is arguing that the environmental impact can't be reduced. I'm just saying that people are blind and don't care about deaths caused by having a car, but they are also blind and don't care about deaths caused by eating meat.

Yes, not everyone buys their meat from bad sources, I'd definitely like for it to become a majority.

Unfortunately, there's not enough land for that, I'd rather eat bugs.

> If you want to be sarcastic, make it obvious.

Yes I agree that my comment about sheep was entirely unnecessary, as was this whole discussion, I removed it.

It might well be possible. I don't know if you have the patience for it, but this is a very interesting talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzvtM-Wo4c

Basically he argues that yes you can. There are a few reasons this makes sense.

1. All food comes from the sun to begin with (except for what diesel you add in via plowing, etc)

2. There aren't huge variations in different plant's ability to perform photosynthesis (might be 2x, might be 5x, but probably not 1000x)

3. This means it doesn't matter too much if you grow the grain, harvest it, transport it, feed it to cows or if you just grow grass and let them eat it

4. Grasses grow according to a S-curve meaning that there's an optimal height to grow a grass up to, and harvest it down to, for maximal production which is entirely different than annual crops

I'd really encourage you to watch the video, though, if you can stand it because it's very enlightening.

> 1. All food comes from the sun to begin with (except for what diesel you add in via plowing, etc)

Nitpick, but all energy we use comes from the Sun (ok, ultra-nitpick, some come from the previous star, but we're talking nuclear reactions in Earth's core here) - all fossil fuels, as well as wind and hydro are nothing but accumulated and transformed solar power.

I rarely lose my patience, I do love the subject of sustainable growth and will check your video.

When you go start a farm you'll have to invite me to visit.