honest interest, okay. but it remains unclear whether the government will implement is either forms or you can buy it or to buy the sell a geologist wrote to the use media to be long, long. all right, you are up to date. so next we have a special looking at whether beef could be produced in a way that's actually good for the environment. stay tuned for about the take care of the not just another day. so much is happening all at once. we take time to understand this is the day i'm in that's look at current use events, analyzed by experts and critical thinking is weekdays on d, w. fast fashion as an environmental 9

a clothing graveyard image of land desert. this is where things wealthy industrial nations no longer need and light us textile ways get stranded fashion. watch now on youtube the, there's something about the birthday, is it, this is maybe the crack of just looking at one, almost feel safe. if only forgetting about their impact was as easy as the lights, but producing food and it's nearly a 3rd of all greenhouse gases and all food. these parties are the worst offenders. some cleaning can do things differently. we're going to be talking about rotation, like grazing, rotational, grazing, rotational, raising the rotational addresses and produce b. so it's actually good to the environment. even carbon neutral. because these same cows can also improve the so well and helps walk the c o 2 in the ground.

other state as completely bush either way, deep as a massive problem and to slow climate change, we have to fix it. is the only solution to or is there another way to eat peace without people have been domesticating animals for 10000 years. was became dogs, wild, goats and sheep retained, and or ox became cattle. today there farmed around the world with the u. s. and brazil, producing the most, it's a $400000000000.00 industry, even if you're like me and eat no meat at all. i'm the budgetary beef production still affects you, because it's responsible for 4300000000 metric tons of c o 2 every year. that's almost as much as the entire united states and fixing this isn't as simple as everyone going beacon that is to reality, right? and we need to recognize a couple ronko is a plant scientist and i p c. c officer from colombia,

focusing on making livestock more sustainable. their 1st one is found, developed countries where people may choose what they eat. there are, at least i know that reality and for developing countries where people are struggling for nutrients, animal protein to make a huge difference. and beating up our beef production can help. but what's the best way? i've heard for very simply speaking, there are 2 ways of raising cattle. one is grasp bed farms like this one in northern germany, run by hi colquitt for dental. if you make this more, i guess what i can discuss is only have that extra inviting. so be really easy then the next class that's really fixed and vans it to before that, i mean is quite a bit annoyed. this is a small operation right now. there are 50 animals here. eat in the spring. that's your phone. it doesn't cut it all season yadi here it's fine. i've got dividends. the most of i do isn't. yeah. on the highest and so called spa, this could be something the fact that i'm lucky to flash the room around

a $160.00 hector and have a warm bar and for the winter raising cattle look similar to this in many places in the world. and then there are few thoughts that can help thousands or tens of thousands of animals. they live in a confined area and eat mostly grain and sort of grass as to which is better grasp it or feed lot even actually not that simple. let's compare sustainability using these categories. we'll start with what goes in progress. had cattle doesn't travel far because the, the combination of grass and clover which contains more protein during the summer. so this is all harvested and turned into that for them to eat over the winter. so grass fed beef avoids the emissions and chemical run, also producing grain. it also winds on the water grasp, and cadillac shrink from lakes are ground. why not so for feed lots, the cows drink water and so do the crops coming to their feet. there is a downside to grass, the cows update more than 10 green and what goes in also comes out wherever cows

are, all these cows are basically constantly burping and farting which generates a lot of methane. essentially, the bigger they are, the more methane they make. methane is indivisible, so best detected by satellite. it's way more potent than c o 2 on a diet of grass, animals go slower, so expel more methane than greenfield caps. surprises when for the feed lots there . it also comes out as manure in your, in lots of it, in addition to methane, it releases nitrous oxide and other potent greenhouse gas in the summer. the minority composes in the field and pollution levels are low during winter. the minorities handled similarly to a feed lot, like also technical there. it all comes out here and then it shuttled over there where it's eventually turn into liquid and sprayed on fields. except on a feedlot manure is stored in large pools, releasing more methane than solid storage. and the more that there is,

and the longer it's stored, the more it releases. another big difference is what it contains. on feed lots antibiotics we use to keep animals healthy and stimulate growth. they end up in those are newer pools and can leak into our water supply. antibiotic resistance partially fueled by me, production kills around a 1000000 people every year. one big downside to grafted farms is a fair way less efficient at producing meet these cows. i want to be 2 or 2 and a half, which is a rounding year longer than conventional operations. that means only 10 of them are cited every year. cows grow faster on feed lots, which makes it cheaper. meet you see mostly in by the very rich. so more efficient farming has made it more widely available. but progress, but you have to pay a premium. the costs of this meet is really high at $22.00 euro per kilo. for

comparison, the supermarket need is 10 the difference in price does speak to a difference in quality to the stuff to you. as long as i've fixed the size, as long as i don't get back to the next question, comes of finance deposit and most of the 1st define is i'm tired of that. i'm in the extra next into institute of the time because i should never should back except to get and response is puts the slice into my suit. it quits the if i just encourage you to. quality is also tied animal well as stressed animals make for worse, meet and on the lot. stressors are everywhere. eating green can cause ulcers and cattle and they are often sick from the close quarters. transport and cattle is also stressful. so if you'd like to mit, less methane and meet is significantly cheaper. the grazing systems are better quality in animals, use less water and pollute less so far. they're winning on sustainability when viewed from a global scale, though, it's a different story. so a lot of discussions focus on the farm level for the food food system is massive

its global janet wrong enough, and is an expert in calculating and evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. gene can't just focus on practices that might improve things at the bottom that we use. i flip, what is the system the and if the system level land use is the most important consideration, even including land to grow green, b lots use land more efficiently than grading systems according to german organic was that can only be about one full grown cow per tech tear of land for scale. one hacked here is roughly 2 american football fields. that's a lot of land which we're running out. it's globally, we're using 2 thirds of our land to raise lifestyle. as more people eat meat, more land is the for us to to use for past year. we're losing $3000000.00 hectares per year. this way, it's a huge problem, especially in the amazon rain for 40 percent of tropical forest loss occurs and present one of the world's largest beef producers production. there is also extremely inefficient and that's something that needs to change. one of the most

important things we do is to increase the productivity of livestock, and there's a huge kind of many people patient opportunity to do that because the productivity levels across the globe can vary by a 100 from one of the most hyped ways to increase productivity is rotational grazing. it's a practice of intensively grazing an area and then moving the animals to let it recover. it's been used by shepherds around the world for centuries and became popular in the 1950s in the us as a response to the greeting. pastor and climate change is putting it in the spotlight again. live stuff to address climate change and does advocate this ted talk has been viewed over 8000000 times. your 3 key aspect of this technique. the more catalyst, dividing a passers and planting agrees invitation instead of one cow per hector. think for their intensive grazing of a smaller area stimulates plants to grow faster and put down deeper routes. a new plan you. ready or a great team,

but carefully you are able to extract the best nutrients all their forages, and therefore you are able to read you your read relative methane emissions. it will not fired, but based on the airport to use more meaningful or more be additional grazing is more efficient without the environmental impacts of the feed lot field studies like this one is also shown that it improves. so quality and request is carbon via the cat grass grows, sucking up c o 2, which is eaten by the animals. as a trembled inventor, the carbon is stored underground. the phone is going to by using it, they're producing carbon neutral beats. so these calculations don't really add up method, nitrous oxide are way more potent than c o 2. so this well would have to continuously store way more carbon to make up for the emissions and the animals. and that's just not how soil works. the amount of carbon notified storage source is limited to some point you were rich. i've talked to the agent. so those are also wildly different around the world to accomplish very complex when you implement in practice to

increase your company, you're at war with the microphone just and working perfectly. rotational grazing still uses a lot of land. studies have found around twice as much of feedback. it's not a silver bullet. the trouble is there is some familiar faces painting. it is one. this study was funded by general mills. if grazing is carbon neutral, there's no reason for them to cut down on the production. this movie about the benefits of rotational grazing was funded partially by show, which uses the practice to offset fossil fuel emissions. but swell is not unless carbon sinks so all setting oil doesn't make sense. and because rotational grazing uses more precious land, converting cross fields into a pastor doesn't add up either, especially in places that produce massive amounts of meat. where it does make sense is places where people struggle to get enough protein or places with highly inefficient breathing systems. yes, we absolutely need to use these practices in places like columbia and countries in africa where these rotational partners actually restore. so helping increase

productivity, that makes a huge lot of sense. another country where it makes a huge amount of sense is presented as the world's 2nd largest exporter of meet. improving efficiency will have a massive impact. rotational grazing could decrease deforestation and restore degraded areas. so if we continue to eat meat pie that's also have their place, but they need fixing and they can be more sustainable without making meet super expensive restrictions on the number of animals and requirements for them to have time outside improves animal welfare feed additives like algae can reduce methane emissions from cattle, nor can be treated to release less greenhouse gases, and not letting it sit for long periods of time can limit its impact in law's limiting antibiotic use and feed lots, reduced antibiotic resistance. no matter what though, this needs to go hand in hand with reduced consumption in some places. if we actually the limited beef consumption to about one and a half time brokers a week, we could to still continue to enjoy. so we can eat beef without ruining the planet,

sort of people in places like the u. s. and e, you need to eat lots of it. that's the most effective way for them to lower their carbon footprint. and whether through better grazing or feed lots, we can make the production more sustainable by improving efficiency. but even so, producing beef is not good for the environment. so ensuring we change the current system is absolutely key to a future level planet. so what do you think, friend or dinner is the account with us? can we eat them and still be a sustainable? and because i got my shoes really dirty, please let us know in the comments and don't forget to subscribe. because we, we've got new videos every friday, the

whole median people, sick, bosnia largest power unit has been accused of causing respiratory diseases. and cancer diagnoses are increasing all over the area, but offer readers are stonewalling. politicians are useless and there's no money for research. is there any hope less focus on 0 next, on dw, into the conflicts with tim sebastian, my guess cumberland is alexander w, director of the con, the russia, you raise your sense for now rushes economy has stabilized, and mr. put in incisive on war crimes charges is none. the less finding plenty of friends so well as new found confidence symptom into a big a role with ukraine and even a fight with mason conflict in 60 minutes on dw. well then progress pop calls to everyone who wants to know

more about the topic. the 2nd son about this story is the on the headline world in progress. the w talk cost, the hello and the welcome to focus on europe. it's wonderful to have you with us. scores of refugees continue to attempt to reach you are risking their lives in the winter, the journey to the spanish canary islands is particularly dangerous. nevertheless, the small island of arrow is reporting an unprecedented increase in refugees.