New study: we found that small reductions in pasture-based beef production in some areas, especially in temperate, humid regions like the Eastern US & Europe, could lead to large amounts of CO2 removal by regrowing native forests.

This is an absolutely minuscule fine for meat companies with managers who knew children were being subjected to dangerous labor, including injuries and burns.

The "ultra-processed" food research & its media coverage are littered with poor definitions & comparisons, w misleading conclusions. This creates an illusion that UPFs provide new insights, but it's all slight-of-hand. @mbolotnikova dives deep

One of my research side quests: animals are agents and shape their own conservation outcomes. Bringing their preferences into conservation plans can improve their success. Pioneering biologist @MarcBekoff interviewed my coauthor & me for this article.

RT @jeffrsebo: Great to see @MarcBekoff and @matthewhayek continuing their conversation about the importance of recognizing animal agency i….

But this is an incredible amount of focused feeding for a "free ranging" pasture operation. There are mixed systems in the US & the Global South where where small herds stay close to the farm. But in many systems, beef cattle are out on meadows & ranges for days at a time.

Cattle also browsed irrigated, high-quality pasture, causing lower methane than average in *both* control & seaweed group. This seems a well-done study that controlled for as many factors as it could and found a reliable way feed cattle a pretty unpalatable supplement.

This is even more often than many feedlots feed their beef cattle. They typically feed in troughs 1-3x day.

New study tested feeding seaweed to suppress methane from *free-grazing* cattle. All previous studies tested cattle in stalls/feedlots. They found reductions of 38%. But this wasn't typical grazing. They fed 1lb of mixed feed-seaweed pellets across 3x/day!

Thanks to @georgina_gustin for interviewing me & drawing attention to this worrying trend. It's obviously up to Kazakhstan if they want to invest in economic production other than oil. But US firms need not play along & add to the fiction that it's somehow beneficial for climate.

Anytime you abandon crop production, you get C sequestration, whether you graze cattle there or not, because you've stopped tilling. The slight of hand is to put cows on former cropland, watch the soil in those fields accrue, and claim that your beef productoin caused the C sink.

This is because much of Kazakhstan is a former crop producing powerhouse for the former USSR, including the Akmola Region where the cattle are being shipped. You can see its legacy plainly in aerial/satellite images: faded rectangular fields.

Apart from the blatant problem of not counting the biggest source of GHGs. methane, and not being forthright w their soil carbon removal measurements, even if they were counting soil C removal, it's not apparent the cows caused this. it might have happened without the cows

US firms are investing in expanding beef production in Kazakhstan. Yet instead of counting the rising methane emissions this will cause, they're setting up fictitious credits for their supposed carbon removal, without providing credible evidence of it

RT @AnnaPaltseva: #Urbansoils are more than dirt—they’re the foundation of healthy cities. Spoke to @NYUEnvrStudies students yesterday abou….

RT @KennyTorrella: I got to write about @matthewhayek, an enviro scientist who's published eye opening research into livestock's environmen….

RT @jeffrsebo: the #futureperfect50 list also includes my @nyuniversity colleague @matthewhayek and my animal and AI welfare collaborator @….

A big congratulations to my two friends and colleagues @jeffrsebo and @EmmaHakamme for making this year's list too. I'm blessed to have the determined and thought-provoking network that I do.

I was dubbed one of this year's @voxdotcom Future Perfect 50! It's absolutely wild to even be mentioned in the same (long) breath as John Green, Chef José Andrés, and Billie Eilish.