Where do the cows go?

There are about a billion cows, and they each produce about 100kg of methane a year from farts and burps. That is a total of 100,000,000,000kg of methane or 100 teragrams of it. Which is lots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DvhFzrTuqc

Bodie Damp Motorbike wrote: »

There are about a billion cows, and they each produce about 100kg of methane a year from farts and burps. That is a total of 100,000,000,000kg of methane or 100 teragrams of it. Which is lots.

If humans didn't exist how many wild ruminants would there be? What would their methane impact be?

I've seen estimates that there were between 50 and 100 million buffalo in America compared to the modern 100 million cattle.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22178852/

According to this link 50 million Buffalo would produce 86% of the modern 100 million cattle in America's methane. Which is interesting because every continent except Antarctica should have large numbers of Bison and many other wild ruminants like aurochs, elk, deer etc.

The NASA study refered to earlier can directly link the recent spike in methane to Oil/gas production and increases in rice production
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2668/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle/

the_syco

Danthemanhere wrote: »

I'm just wondering, if everyone becomes vegan, where do the cows go?

They'd be killed off to make room for crops.

gozunda

the_syco wrote: »

They'd be killed off to make room for crops.

Areas which grow grass well are not necessarily suitable for arable or horticultural production. In many parts of Ireland a combination of soil type, topography and climate means that commercial crop production for human grade crops is a no go. We can't eat grass that grows well but animals can.

The other issue is that soil cultivation and harvesting cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere. Where crops can be grown successfully, the removal of livestock will mean increased use of fossil fuel to manufacture even more artificial fertilisers in order to maintain some semblance of soil fertility. The pipe dream of eradicating livestock does not make a particularly good reality...

davidjtaylor

Effects wrote: »

As a farmer myself, I've already given up land to return to nature. I get paid by the EU to do so.

Yes, I've heard of this. Fair play to ya. Also, I know dairy farmers' vegan sons who have inherited the farm and either forested it (again, subsidised but a much more acceptable use of subsidies) or opened an animal sanctuary.

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Yes, I've heard of this. Fair play to ya. Also, I know dairy farmers' vegan sons who have inherited the farm and either forested it (again, subsidised but a much more acceptable use of subsidies) or opened an animal sanctuary.

Yes a much better use than feeding people

The11Duff

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Yes, I've heard of this. Fair play to ya. Also, I know dairy farmers' vegan sons who have inherited the farm and either forested it (again, subsidised but a much more acceptable use of subsidies) or opened an animal sanctuary.

More than one?

Effects wrote: »

As a farmer myself, I've already given up land to return to nature. I get paid by the EU to do so.

Can you please say which payment you get that allows land return to nature, genuinely I’d like to know.
We allow small corners return wild but fear of being disallowed on larger areas stops us.

I’m genuinely not aware of any scheme that pays a subsidy for wilding land.

El Tarangu

Danthemanhere wrote: »

Do you think farmers will give up their land to be returned to nature?

Probably not.

Do you think farmers would continue raising cattle at current levels if either:
(i) increasing numbers of people stopped eating beef for whatever reason, or;
(ii) they no longer received subsidies at current levels?

endainoz

_Brian wrote:

Can you please say which payment you get that allows land return to nature, genuinely Iâ€™d like to know. We allow small corners return wild but fear of being disallowed on larger areas stops us.

_Brian wrote:

Iâ€™m genuinely not aware of any scheme that pays a subsidy for wilding land.

Don't bother, they're talking through their hole.

endainoz wrote: »

Don't bother, they're talking through their hole.

I’ll give everyone a chance to see if they are genuine. It’s quite a claim, if such a subsidy exists it’s not advertised widely.

I’ve searched and searched recently to see what exactly can be done regarding biodiversity and honestly didn’t see and wilding scheme in existence.

El Tarangu wrote: »

Probably not.

Do you think farmers would continue raising cattle at current levels if either:
(i) increasing numbers of people stopped eating beef for whatever reason, or;
(ii) they no longer received subsidies at current levels?

Beef farming must be on the cusp of a change.
Prices paid are through the floor and continuing to fall.

The vast majority are making no profit on their animals at this point. Tradition and hope for a bounce back has people holding on but many I work with are cutting numbers.

Ironically the issues in China may put a floor under prices but that’s not a certainty.

The majority of subs are not tied to animal numbers so that’s no reason to keep them up.

I can say I’m in the absolute minority of farmers who believe we are overproducing beef. The vast majority of beef farms could cut by 25% or more and still have the same bottom line at the end of the year.

machaseh

In India, they also don't eat cows and they roam the streets of cities freely. They are not allowed to kill them. so in a hypothetical scenario where from one day to the other everybody would turn vegan that may be what might happen.

Except meat consumption is stagnant in most places and in many countries it is even rising, I dont see veganism taking over anytime soon.

machaseh wrote: »

In India, they also don't eat cows and they roam the streets of cities freely. They are not allowed to kill them. so in a hypothetical scenario where from one day to the other everybody would turn vegan that may be what might happen.

Except meat consumption is stagnant in most places and in many countries it is even rising, I dont see veganism taking over anytime soon.

Their really is no end to stuff being made up in this thread.

According to a 2016 USDA review, India has rapidly grown to become the world's largest beef exporter, accounting for 20% of world's beef

There dairy industry is massive also, as Hindu's might not slaughter cattle but they do drink milk.

And do you really think cows will be left wandering the streets here where people won't put up with dog sh1t?

davidjtaylor

The11Duff wrote: »

More than one?

Defo. I move in vegan circles - positive things are happening.

_Brian wrote: »

Can you please say which payment you get that allows land return to nature, genuinely I’d like to know.
We allow small corners return wild but fear of being disallowed on larger areas stops us.

I’m genuinely not aware of any scheme that pays a subsidy for wilding land.

Probably means the subsidy for planting native woodland.

Otherwise one of my front lawns could be making me money!...Weirdly it looks not too dissimilar to the other front lawn that I cut now.

Bodie Damp Motorbike wrote: »

Probably means the subsidy for planting native woodland.

Otherwise one of my front lawns could be making me money!...Weirdly it looks not too dissimilar to the other front lawn that I cut now.

Around native woodland trees needs to be managed and kept clear to let them grow.

_Brian wrote: »

Around native woodland trees needs to be managed and kept clear to let them grow.

Why's that? I thought this country was covered with them until we cut them all down.

Bodie Damp Motorbike wrote: »

Why's that? I thought this country was covered with them until we cut them all down.

Higher establishment rates.
Saplings easily flgrownin a forest situation as the floor isn’t a mat of vegetation.

Plant saplings in open land and they will be choked with grasses and weeds, many will be lost and growth seriously impacted.

It’s why it was common to plant high value trees with nursery trees that would grow slightly ahead of them for shelter and ground cover. These could then be cut away at appropriate time

Bodie Damp Motorbike wrote: »

Why's that? I thought this country was covered with them until we cut them all down.

It's not that simple. The forests that were here developed over thousands of years. Farting belching grazing animals had an important role in keeping the ground clear enough for the trees to develop. Re-wilding like many would suggest here would take much longer and leave the country covered in briars and matted grass/weeds. Some species of trees might trive well enough eventually, from what I've seen silver birch and Ash are normally fairly good at establishing themselves. Relying on a few species would not be a great idea either as disease like Ash die back could be devastating.

Also the whole country was never completely forest like many seem to believe.

Just tried some ostrich steak and it's fairly amazing, in both taste and texture. Great alternative to beef - more nutritious (including being higher in iron) and environmentally sustainable.

Also there wouldn't be the same issue with flies, with it being a non-flying bird.

I’m still questioning the post earlier that said payments were available for rewilding land.
No one has come forward with information on this and at this stage I’m tending to call it out for BS to be honest.

Gael23

We stop breeding and a combination of animal feed and natural mortality takes out the rest

In addition only people who place zero value on their land will opt for forestry at the moment.

Yes there is 15 years premium. But that’s it. Currently the grants available for planting are consumed by the forestry companies.

I read some reports recently and clearfell is paying for clearing, transport to process, and replanting land, there is no final profit for the farmer. There are also no premiums on land that’s into its second rotation.

So, your expecting farmers to place land into forestry for 15years modest premiums and then nothing, it’s lost forever and can never be returned to farming. Land that’s been worked for generations to improve it, by parents and grandparents it’s very hard to abandon all that for 15 years payments and then nothing ever again. Many take a more pragmatic viewpoint and see their time as a custodian for the next generation in the hopes that farming will be better for them.

So saying forestry is a viable option is like saying Veganism is a fad, frankly most farmers find the notion of forestry insulting to hem and their heritage.

Yeah the subsidies are too low. They need to make converting a good proposition from a financial PoV. And converting to native woodland, not just more sitka deadlands. Otherwise it's pretty much lipservice. But there is plenty to indicate the government's action on climate change is nothing more than lipservice tbh.

jmayo

Effects wrote: »

Most vegans keep unwanted cattle as pets, until they die of natural causes.
All cows are artificially inseminated so they can't survive in the wild anyway.

Ever hear of a bull?

Effects wrote: »

As a farmer myself, I've already given up land to return to nature. I get paid by the EU to do so.

Yeah you are farmer alright.
And I am batman :rolleyes:

Effects wrote: »

Yeah, I'm going to take the word of a confirmed troll such as yourself :rolleyes:

I'm sure you have loads of naturally inseminated, inbred cattle running around your farm. :rolleyes:

Fecking rich you chastising others after the muppetry you come out with.:rolleyes:

Fekcing hell I stumbled on this thread off front page, but it has been enlightening in some senses.
If this is the calibre of people who claim to be vegan then no wonder others laugh at them.

If anything artificially insemination means a bigger gene pool and less inbreeding than the same bulls doing the work.