environment

Gas giants: Can we stop cows from emitting so much methane?

39 Comments
By Myriam LEMETAYER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


39 Comments
Login to comment

Nice NOSE , LOL

2 ( +3 / -1 )

At one time, before being slaughtered to near extinction, the population of American Bison was roughly equal to the number of cattle in America today.

Yet methane was not considered a problem then.

More research needs to be done to substantiate these claims.

For that matter, the beer and pizza diet of the average American must be a substantial contributed to excess methane production as well.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Simple, stop breeding cows, killing them, and eating them.

Stop inseminating them, killing thier babies, and stealing their milk.

If more people stopped eating dead cows and stopped drinking the milk meant for their babies, the problem would be solved.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

On the topic of hot gas, "runaway global climate change" seems a bit of a stretch.

The eco-alarmists conveniently ignore the fact that methane levels in the atmosphere have been much higher historically than today. Yes, the Earth's climate changes, and always has. Recall that very enormous creatures once roamed the very green planet emitting far higher levels of methane.

On the geological scale, the past few hundred years of human population are but a brief blip.

But the endless fretting and wringing of hands over our impending doom is quite theatrical

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The device filters the methane, transforming it into carbon dioxide, which per molecule has a much less potent effect on global warming.

Less potent, but longer lasting, as per the article. Seems like it could be potentially kicking the can down the road? Less problem in the short term but more in the longer.

The seaweed option seems far more interesting, as there could conceivably be other benefits to large-scale growing of seaweed. Red seaweed is pretty good for humans to be eating too, for instance.

Every bit helps sure, so I wouldn't say research into this category is without merit, but I feel like there are other industries with much greater impact. Again, the article alone starts 60% of methane production is from fossil fuels.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Pastoral cows major sources of methane gas emission? What about nus and buffalos that graze in a countless number in the African wild? And how about human beings that also eat and discharge?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. Most methane production comes from human actions. Are we supposed to destroy all the cows and other beasties, stop eating their flesh and dairy? Then we'd all be sickly, unhealthy, unhappy stick-figured walking dead. We've had all these animals for these purposes as well as industrial uses too, for millenia and maybe since man first walked the planet.

but I feel like there are other industries with much greater impact. Again, the article alone starts 60% of methane production is from fossil fuels.

Exactly. You tell this 'cow theory' nonsence to a farmer, whether he has a degree in 'gricultural science' or not. Farmers have always known better than to believe this BULL.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Cows and rice produce about 25% of the methane. Rice is about 10-15%. Cows 15-20%.

Livestock emissions – from manure and gastroenteric releases – account for roughly 32 percent of human-caused methane emissions.

Garlic-fed cows produce less.

https://www.ft.com/content/73e5f1fc-76ac-48b0-871a-7fa4e8bda69b

1 ( +5 / -4 )

At one time, before being slaughtered to near extinction, the population of American Bison was roughly equal to the number of cattle in America today. Yet methane was not considered a problem then.

There is some info on the difference between buffalo/bison emissions in the article below.

https://mrdrscienceteacher.wordpress.com/2019/09/21/bison-vs-cow-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

And a nicely titled short article about human emissions at this link:

https://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/citizenscientist/silent-but-deadly/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sorry, I should have written "the difference between buffalo/bison and domestic cattle emissions".

About this point:

Less potent, but longer lasting, as per the article. Seems like it could be potentially kicking the can down the road? Less problem in the short term but more in the longer. 

My understanding is that methane in the atmosphere will eventually transform to CO2 (through lightning strikes, whatever), so not so much kicking the can down the road but getting to the CO2 stage more quickly.

But I do wonder about the overall effect of cutting down the number of domestic cattle. Assuming their feed is from naturally grown plants that have absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere, will we have more uneaten plant matter on the planet, and so what happens when it rots? Will it produce methane?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

At one time, before being slaughtered to near extinction, the population of American Bison was roughly equal to the number of cattle in America today.

Yet methane was not considered a problem then.

More research needs to be done to substantiate these claims.

The bisons' life was more holistic as part of the 'circle of life' to be fair... so they probably tasted much better

Instead of just thinking in reductive, profit-directed ways (e.g. buying seaweed), the land they graze on can actually be rotated around with chickens which live off the insects hatching from the manure the cows make, amongst other integrated methods.

All these technocratic solutions are just racketeering for corporations

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Admittedly I'm not a scientist but wouldn't a cork do the job?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

tokyo-m:

Simple, stop breeding cows, killing them, and eating them.

Stop inseminating them, killing thier babies, and stealing their milk.

If more people stopped eating dead cows and stopped drinking the milk meant for their babies, the problem would be solved.

Well said. As for me, I haven't eaten a cow in over twenty years. Not missing it one bit.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I think people are over looking that we are not talking about a few cows on a farm. When you look at the cows needed for mass dairy and mass slaughtering, the methane becomes a problem. It is horrific what is going on at those places.

With the innovation in alternative milks and meats, I think we are seeing a pretty significant shift in consumer preferences for alternative options as they tend to be healthier, safer, more ethical and more sustainable.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

At one time, before being slaughtered to near extinction, the population of American Bison was roughly equal to the number of cattle in America today.

Yet methane was not considered a problem then.

More research needs to be done to substantiate these claims.

For that matter, the beer and pizza diet of the average American must be a substantial contributed to excess methane production as well.

More actual research will not be done, because this is no way a "science" issue, it is a political issue. Giant corporations want a world government, with a global tax system, and "climate change" is their way to get this. This is why globalists came up with this entire narrative (starting with Maurice Strong, the oil baron who cooked up this scheme while working for the UN). The Great Reset agenda is all about getting rid of the middle class and scaling down economic output. They want 99% of us living as neo-feudalist peasants, using UBI tokens to pay rent in tiny capsule pod apartments, watching netflix and playing video games, and eating plant/bug based foods.

They certainly don't want a strong, healthy population. Eating beef will be phased out, and the excuse will be that "cow farts are changing the weather" or whatever. Many people will believe this.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

before the cows methane take a look at BIG factories and careless business

not the cows - they contribute to the 5 % of the problem

0 ( +0 / -0 )

non humans contribute 100000000 % more than cows to this problem , isn' t it ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And perhaps the easiest way to reduce cow methane emissions is for the world to eat less beef and diary.

No. Eat more cows more quickly.

Want to help the environment. Go to Mickey Dee’s right now…stat!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ah, the cow farts are back! The UN was onto this already 2 decades ago (remember the famous "Livestocks long shadow" report?) but that topic got blown away by all the bloviating about CO2. Seems now they are digging out that old line.

Fact is, people want to eat, and as long as population increases food demand will increase too. And those fat overpaid bloviators at the Paris conference are not going on a diet themselves.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Tokyo-m

Simple, stop breeding cows, killing them, and eating them.

Stop inseminating them, killing thier babies, and stealing their milk.

If more people stopped eating dead cows and stopped drinking the milk meant for their babies, the problem would be solved.

Well, what do you eat? Anything that does not need to be killed first, or that gets killed during the process of your eating it? I am curious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They can produce as much methane as they want as long as they keep tasting so delicious. You gotta love a good steak!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well, what do you eat?

You answered your own question.

Anything that does not need to be killed first

T'ain't rocket science.

There's plenty to eat, without chowing down on dead bodies that aren't even good for you.

U.S. agricultural giant Cargill, partnering with British start-up ZELP (Zero Emissions Livestock Project), has developed a form of mask that covers cows' nostrils.

So big agri not only wants to breed cows to the point of exhaustion, take their babies away, steal their milk, pump them full of antibiotics and growth hormones, feed them cheap grain instead of their natural diet of grass - and now force them to wear a kind of reverse gas mask before they are summarily executed for the crime of being tasty?

All that inhuman torture, just to load the human diet with unnecessary cholesterol and saturated fats to raise the incidence of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The methane emission from the entire chain of production, including food production, land use and even refrigeration in supermarkets, etc. is being attributed to cows burping.

That only diverts attention from the real culprit, transportation and manufacturing machinery. Moving people and produce contributes more greenhouse gasses.

CO2 stay around for about 1,000 years. Methane is dissipated in 10 years. It's converted to cellulose by plants.

So, the cow thing is a diversion.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What about circa a billion older Humans? That CAN'T be an insignificant source of Methane, not to mention the Hydrogen sulfide...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

At one time, before being slaughtered to near extinction, the population of American Bison was roughly equal to the number of cattle in America today.

The estimated number of bison in pre-1800 North America before widespread hunting is 30 to 60 million depending on the source. The US alone has over 90 million head of cattle, Mexico has about 8 million and Canada has another 9 million.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think people are over looking that we are not talking about a few cows on a farm. When you look at the cows needed for mass dairy and mass slaughtering, the methane becomes a problem. It is horrific what is going on at those places.

If you ever want an example of a visible, and olfactory (blech), methane cloud drive by a feedlot alongside I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley called Cowshwitz at night. It's actually part of Harris Ranch but everyone who knows it calls it Cowshwitz. On a still warm summer night you can see the cloud of gas in your headlight beam as you drive up the highway. Then the stench hits your nose and it leaves a film on your helmet face shield or car windshield. Gross! There is a similar experience awaiting the traveler across the valley on Hwy 99 just outside Fowler.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

CO2 stay around for about 1,000 years. Methane is dissipated in 10 years. It's converted to cellulose by plants.

So getting rid of the methane would produce quick results.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All that inhuman torture, just to load the human diet with unnecessary cholesterol and saturated fats to raise the incidence of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer?

Uh, animal fats and protein are basically the healthiest things humans can eat. Factory farmed meat is less healthy, because they feed the animals grains like corn, which make the fat higher in Omega-6 and lower in Omega-3 (closer to vegetable oil, in other words). Grass fed beef is extremely healthy. Wild meats are the healthiest things humans can eat.

Sugar and other processed carbs and vegetable oils are what cause all the health problems in the Western style diet. You more likely to have an unhealthy diet as a vegan (unless you're extremely knowledgeable, which most people aren't) than to just eat good quality animal products.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The estimated number of bison in pre-1800 North America before widespread hunting is 30 to 60 million depending on the source. The US alone has over 90 million head of cattle, Mexico has about 8 million and Canada has another 9 million.

So what? The idea that having animals fart is going to cause catastrophic weather changes is just absurd on the face of it. There is literally ZERO evidence of this. Don't believe me? Try to find any study that is based on real, empirical evidence of cow farts causing the world to warm up that isn't based on some ridiculous computer model.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Cows would soon be required to wear masks also?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Lol, blaming the cows whose only job is to be eaten.

If people want to avert the end of the world, we should dismantle all nuclear weapons before stopping eating hamburgers

0 ( +1 / -1 )

we should dismantle all nuclear weapons before stopping eating hamburgers

Or we could do both?

Sugar and other processed carbs and vegetable oils are what cause all the health problems in the Western style diet. You more likely to have an unhealthy diet as a vegan (unless you're extremely knowledgeable, which most people aren't) than to just eat good quality animal products.

Processed foods do have a lot to answer for, I’ll give you that; but it’s likely the people eating all the sugar-laden, highly-processed junk are not insisting on quality, grass-fed beef. They want their meat cheap, which is why there are so many factory farms churning out low-quality meat from tortured animals.

If the market offered only high-quality grass-fed meat from ethically-raised animals, there would be a lot less steak on plates, because people simply couldn’t afford it. And both the human population and the environment would be a lot healthier.

Omnivore, vegetarian or vegan, people need to be informed about what they’re eating if they want to eat healthily and ethically.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

we should dismantle all nuclear weapons before stopping eating hamburgers

Or we could do both?

Yes!!!!

Of course!

Unfortunately, the efforts to limit the so called greenhouse gases are paralleled not by efforts to limit nuclear weapons but instead in proliferating them.

So if we're gonna be doing only one, stopping nuclear proliferation should take precedence over stopping cow farts and burps proliferation

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This whole "Beef is the cause of greenhouse gas and uses too much drinking water" is BS.

Cows get most of their water from what they eat

Cows eat a lot of what humans leave behind creating a market for reuse (soy been husks, corn plants etc)

Cows gas outputs are not coming from deeply burried fossil fuels, it was in the air already

Cow droppings are a key non fossil fuel fertiliser

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cows eat a lot of what humans leave

Left to their own devices, cows eat grass, with small amounts of grain when the grass goes to seed. Imprisoned in a barn or more likely a feedlot, they eat whatever humans think they can get away with that's cheap and easy to procure.

Cows gas outputs are not coming from deeply burried fossil fuels, it was in the air already

Methane is produced in the cow's gut, from the breakdown of the food it has eaten. It was 'in the air already' in the same way the sandwich you had for lunch was in the air already. 'It isn't a fossil fuel' doesn't mean 'that's all right then'.

Cow droppings are a key non fossil fuel fertiliser

At least you got one thing right.

Invalid CSRF

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understand there are 80% less emissions to raise the same amount of chicken as beef. Choosing chicken is a good idea if you are a meat eater.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo

Most of the anti-beef discussions don't go into any depth that I've seen.

Comments like "cutting fossil fuels are not enough to save us from global warming, we need to change our diet" then high level numbers of calorie substitution if we didn't have as many cows. No depth on whether that food for cows was actually something that would go away, or it's production could be avoided since it's actually just a by product of other industry.

Granted, the link below is probably sponsors buy someone in the meat industry but try to find a study that's not biased these days. at least this looks to be somewhat complete in detail, rather than "I'm for the good of the people, I'm a scientist so believe me even though I provide no facts and my methods don't seem scientific... I'll wear a white coat if that helps"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of the anti-beef discussions don't go into any depth that I've seen.

That’s less a problem with the ‘anti-beef discussions’ and more a problem of you not paying attention - or not wanting to pay attention.

 high level numbers of calorie substitution if we didn't have as many cows. No depth on whether that food for cows was actually something that would go away,

I have no idea what that means. What ‘calorie substitution’? ‘Whether what food for cows would go away’? What are you talking about?

I persevered with your YouTube link, shaking my head at all the whataboutisms, until they started comparing the nutritional values of beef and rice. Who looks to rice as a source of protein? If I were looking for excuses to keep eating meat, I would probably take some comfort in your link. But I’m not, and it was merely irritating in its shallowness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well if the so called vegans and vegetarians were truly paying attention they would realize its physically impossible to be a vegan or vegetarian and stay alive for very long.

If you think your a vegan or vegetarian then better take a closer look at what going into your body.

Some of the animal protien is too small for you to notice .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites