nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Methane Cycle ignored

WhichWay

I found this 2 minute video from Australia's Good Meat.

It explains better than I could why cattle in agriculture have nothing to do with global warming.

Why does or EPA, Government, environmental groups, print media and farming organisations ignore the science.

They only add up the GHG from a cow breaking down grass, and ignore the equal amount of GHG absorbed by the grass. It is a closed cycle. But we only report one side of it.

Remove all the cows and it will make no sufferance to global warming.

https://youtu.be/VLmpC-VZoD8?si=Tfzeji2zh8VCpFgg

Who should I tell?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

monseiur

Consider the following - China, India, Bangladesh and many more in that neck of the woods built / brought into service, on average, an extra new coal burning power station every week over the last 3 years burning millions of tons of coal per year and they are still building as demand for electricity outstrips supply.

And here we are in a tiny green, rain washed, windswept rocky outcrop in the north Atlantic squabbling over a few cow farts. Some are so deluded and brainwashed by the loony greens and other anti farmer propaganda that they are convinced that farmers and their activities are the root of all the planets woes and by putting them out of business all will well in the world. It's about time some one in authority shout STOP STOP STOP this nonsense before it's too late and the young generation turn their back on the land.

The truth is that the products produced by farmers here be it dairy, meat, grain, vegetables etc. is almost organic, and the whole production process is very environmentally friendly when compared to the rest of the EU and indeed the world.

As the world's population increases so does the demand for food so farmers here should be encouraged and supported to produce more to supply this ever increasing food market. If Ireland fail to ''corner the market'' countries like Brazil, Argentina etc. are waiting and ready to up their production to fill the void and in the process slash & burn more and more of the Amazon rain forest......the lungs of our planet.

Say my name

Burning creates methane. Those timber blocks that you buy that make the claim of being carbon neutral because they took that carbon from the atmosphere create methane when burned.

Petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, heating oil create methane when burned as well as the obvious carbon dioxide that was locked up underground.

Creating new bog and wetland creates methane.

Those three have backers though and those that will fight tooth and nail in their defence because it doesn't involve killing and eating an animal or using their products.

But get a ruminant farmed (Wild get a pass because they're not farmed by farmers who own land) and it's damnation that it eats a plant that took down carbon that converted it to protein rich milk and meat for humans. Whilst that plant most likely was perennial and was very favourable to soil carbon accumulation than if that same land required an annual crop to be bought from merchants and diesel and machinery to till that land releasing soil carbon whilst doing so.

Secondary producer financial logic.

Birdnuts

I would agree that the whole methane from cattle thing is being overplayed here and in the rest of the EU. What is of more concern is Ammonia emmissions from large intensive livestock units which is a proven hazard to air quality, human lung health and certain habitats like peatlands, Temperate Rainforests etc. Getting on top of that would only really affect the largest and most intensive operators and would deliver far more in terms of pollution that needs to be cut.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735527#Comment_121735527

I dunno. I don't get what your saying, despite being previously in research groups into methane and animal agriculture in the EU and further afield. I'll be sure to pass on your info to those still there.

The fart one I don't get. I'm not sure on the science behind the farts but it's usually caused by the breakdown of the food, which would have captured carbon to be grown for you to consume, and I assume the farts will convert back to gases and be used to grow more food in future. Just because it's smelly doesn't mean there's more there. It just means it's smelly! This point is moot though if what you ate is some ultra processed factory made in a vat of some sort, using a lot of energy in the process. In that case, most likely you are adding to the problem.

White Clover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735304#Comment_121735304

My posts were always about Ireland. This is an Irish farming forum.

smallbeef

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735159#Comment_121735159

The human population has increased well over 100% in the same time frame. Unlike cattle numbers which have plateaued 15 years ago, the human population is projected to grow another 25% in the next 50 years. Which country do we cull first? Ah wait humans buy stuff needed for endless 'economic growth'.

So Ireland culls the national herd, which is in slow decline anyway. Naturally more rain-forest makes way and void is filled in the usual capitalist way. What a great green you are!

Its so ironic that green policies are the ones harming the world, it must be a truth too difficult to realise for you spacers. The oil industry have ye attacking the wrong industry like the useful idiots you are.

magicbastarder

OK, here's a more apt analogy. it's the morning after i've had a feed of beers and a curry, and my farts are demonic. but farts eventually dissipate.

however, i've been sitting in a room for several hours, and you come in and ask 'wtf is that smell?' and i respond 'don't look at me, it's smelt like this for the last hour or two'.

that's your 'cattle don't create methane' argument there. that's the best i can do, i can't think of any other way to explain a simple concept to you.

roosterman71

Stumped? Right. If methane amounts aren't changing because cattle amounts aren't changing, how are they creating methane if methane amounts remain static?

magicbastarder

So how are they "creating" methane if the amount doesn't change?

i'm kinda stumped that you're asking that. it's scientific fact that they're creating methane. you seem to be conflating 'not creating a net increase' with 'not creating'. and the difference is moot if they're the source of the original amount anyway.

anyway, it's the same way i'm creating the gas in my hypothetical situation. there's simply no argument against the 'fact' that i'm the one creating the gas there.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735336#Comment_121735336

They may laugh, but you'd be right in what you are saying.

If cattle numbers remain the same, then methane levels remain the same. Even though the cattle are belching it out 365 days a year. So how are they "creating" methane if the amount doesn't change?

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735222#Comment_121735222

lets say i 'invent' a new gas, call it magithane. it lasts for ten years in the atmosphere before oxidising to water and CO2. lets say i create a machine which pumps a million tons into the atmosphere every year. after about 10 years the amount in the atmosphere will have stabilised - a million tons would be oxidising out, being replaced by the million tons i'm pumping in.

so i can state in ten years time, 'hey, me pumping a million tons into the atmosphere every year is not contributing any more magithane to the atmosphere so that's fine'.

regardless of whether this ficticious gas was harmful or not, people would laugh at me for making up such a specious argument.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735285#Comment_121735285

now you're moving the goalposts. you mentioned the number of cattle in the context of the planet, but now you're talking about ireland.

magicbastarder

"They don't create methane."

uh, what? they digest foods in an anaerobic environment, creating methane as a byproduct.

if it was a horse we were talking about - which doesn't have a rumen and so creates far less methane - there'd simply be far less methane released into the atmosphere. your 'exact same amount' argument depends on the already existing steady state; your defence is that there's already methane there created by cattle.

White Clover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735159#Comment_121735159

Irish farmers have no control of cattle numbers outside of the country. Are you suggesting that Irish cattle should be culled due to an increase in numbers in India or China? Where’s the logic in that?? We’ll do our bit here but not for other countries. The fact is that Irish cattle numbers are similar to 50 years ago when the planet was much cooler while fossil fuel usage and consumerism has rocket. If you’re denying that you are only trolling us.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735164#Comment_121735164

They don't create methane. They recycle it. This is tiresome at this stage. The exact same amount of methane is in the atmosphere before the cattle created it as is after.

https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735126#Comment_121735126

your post would make sense if cattle didn't actually create methane. that's the difference. they create an extremely powerful greenhouse gas (over 100 times more powerful than CO2). it's trivial to conclude that they contribute to global warming.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735133#Comment_121735133

that's just a simple failure of logic.

no one is suggesting they're the only source of greenhouse gases. if other areas have contributed and grown, leading to increasing global warming, it does not mean cattle didn't.

and the first few sources i could find online suggest that we have maybe 50% more cattle globally now than 50 years ago anyway. if you've got a decent alternative source for the claim that we've the same, please share them.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/livestock-counts

White Clover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121734880#Comment_121734880

The same number of cows were there 50 years ago when the planet was cooler. What has increased is fossil fuel usage, cars, foreign travel, consumerism. How then are the cows to blame?

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735067#Comment_121735067

They aren't contributing to global warming. They are using what has been captured, returned, and while doing that more is being captured. It's a steady state. Of course ending cattle, and all the other things would reduce emissions. That's not up for debate.

The main difference is that cattle, etc contribute to the growth and sustenance needed by humanity. Flying doesn't. Driving doesn't. At least the EU have sort of come around that agriculture is a special case as there is a trade off between food production and emissions. Trying to reduce the emissions while keeping food cheap, high quality and plentiful is the hard balancing act that has to be figured out.

Then again, the EU think that importing wood from South America and burning it to generate power is carbon neutral :-)

Or growing crops to turn into fuel to be burnt and release carbon is carbon neutral.

But God forbid you put a crop through a ruminant instead of a machine

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735056#Comment_121735056

anaerobic digestion would create methane (e.g. from wetlands, or artificially done). aerobic digestion does not; CO2 is created as there is an oxygen source to provide the oxygen for the CO2.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121735042#Comment_121735042

so you are agreeing with me? that emissions would fall?

you stated that they weren't contributing to global warming. now you seem to have reversed that.

no one disagrees that flying etc. contributes to global warming. the issue was the argument that cattle rearing doesn't.

PoorFarmer

If you take the cattle out of the equation and let the pastures grow until they die naturally and start to break down due to microbial activity etc.. There is a methane emission then also is there not?

Do you suggest we destroy anything that breaks down dead material since they will be net methane emitters also? Or maybe, just maybe, we breed a microbe that doesn't emit methane

roosterman71

And if we stopped flying/driving/eating then emissions would be down too.

Why is methane now a huge issue, when it hasn't been looked at with anything with the same ferocity as the last couple of years, despite the numbers being static?

magicbastarder

thought experiment - let's say we were able to breed a cow which did not emit methane - all other things remain the same; the land use, the way they're grazed, etc.; if we managed that, the role of cattle in climate change would plummet. because the methane being emitted would cease and eventually all the atmospheric methane emitted by cattle would decay.

so it's trivial to conclude that methane from cattle does contribute to global warming.

magicbastarder

were there 1 billion cows globally before plastic, etc.?

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121734880#Comment_121734880

And the plants and grassland would consume the CO2 emitted from big industry instead of the cattle if they were not there.

I think your missing the point here!!!!!!

Cattle were here long before plastic, oil & gas exploration, aeroplanes, cargo ships etc.

magicbastarder

basically what that video is saying is 'methane from cattle contributes to global warming. but if the number of cattle remains the same, eventually the contribution of cattle to global warming plateaus (due to the way methane behaves), so if we don't increase the number of cattle, there will not be additional global warming'.

the fact that methane naturally decays into CO2 does not mean that the whole process involving cattle is natural.

magicbastarder

this is not a difficult concept. if those cows were not there, that methane would not be emitted. methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. thus those cows are contributing to global warming.

it does not matter that the methane eventually decays into CO2 and H2O. the fact that it exists for as long as it does means it contributes to global warming.

even a video produced by a group intending it to be defending farmers says that.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733532#Comment_121733532

I'm very clear. They do emit methane of course. No argument there. But what they emit is methane, that has been converted to carbon and used to grow the crop that fed the animal to allow it release methane. It is not, 100%, adding to the overall levels of methane in the atmosphere. As for what they emit, the same amount is being taken in by the growing crops/trees/etc. It's a cycle, and it's carbon neutral. It's not "new" methane in the same way as extraction of fossil fuels can release huge amounts of it. That's new to the system from stuff that's been buried for millennia. It's the very definition of a steady state

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733464#Comment_121733464

"They don't contribute to global warming as they are part of the cycle."

that's patently untrue. they are emitting methane - a very powerful greenhouse gas - which would not be in the atmosphere otherwise. just because it eventually decays does not mean it is not there.

you're mixing up the idea of a steady state with something that has no effect.

even that video in the OP is clear on this topic.