71
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
71 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
803 readers
471 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The oxygen part of this claim is obvious and funny but also the bison part is wrong…
Or rather the diet they eat.
Feeding cows energy dense foods like grain produces more emissions, like more than 3x the emissions of a grass-based diet.
And wild bison produce even less when eating a wild diet because that’s what they fucking evolved to eat and digest efficiently so yeah you could massively greater numbers of bison with less emissions.
Even just feeding cows on grass instead of enriched grain that they can digest better would be a huge reduction in emissions.
Or, you know, eat the grain instead of feeding it to a cow.
It's like...the whole reason we domesticated animals lol. They eat things we can't so we can still get the most use out of the land. There's no reason for it in today's world because we have ways of utilizing farmland our ancestors couldn't. You can damn near grow just about anything anywhere (like alfalfa in Nevada).
These people don't care about destroying the world or ending animal suffering as long as they get their treats.
Pretty much all of what you say is also the conclusion of the actual paper, which the frothing chuds couldn't be arsed to read the abstract of.