Animal agriculture not 'green'

Recently, your newspaper published an article titled "Area farmer goes green with pork, beef products." Your decision to print this article was irresponsible, as it only perpetuates the false narrative that animal agriculture can, in any sense of the word, be defined as "green."

Animal agriculture is responsible for 51 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Compare that to the entire transportation industry -- all the planes, trains, boats and cars on the entire planet -- which is only responsible for 13 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is the most dangerous gas produced by livestock and on a five year period, it traps 100 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

It is a common misconception to believe that grass-fed means fewer emissions, but in truth, it means more. Grass-fed cows produce 40 percent to 60 percent more methane emissions than grain-fed cows, and, as Mr. Buchheit, the owner of the practice featured for the story pointed out, it takes twice as long for his cows to reach maturity and be "finished" aka slaughtered, which means that they are producing methane for a longer period of time.

There are many more reasons why animal agriculture cannot in any way be defined as "green," but I cannot cite them in the 250 word limit you have imposed. It is, however, the responsibility of journalists to produce accurate and well-rounded reports which are rooted in scientific facts. I implore you to do so.

WENDY STOTT, Milwaukee