Killer cow emissions-Why isn't anyone raising a stink?

[babylonsister]

Killer cow emissions
Livestock are a leading source of greenhouse gases. Why isn't anyone raising a stink?
October 15, 2007

It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.

That may be because it's tough to take cow flatulence seriously. But livestock emissions are no joke.

Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon dioxide, the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources -- fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it's estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day.

It isn't just the gas they pass that makes livestock troublesome. A report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization identified livestock as one of the two or three top contributors to the world's most serious environmental problems, including water pollution and species loss. In terms of climate change, livestock are a threat not only because of the gases coming from their stomachs and manure but because of deforestation, as land is cleared to make way for pastures, and the amount of energy needed to produce the crops that feed the animals.

All told, livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide, according to the U.N. -- more than all the planes, trains and automobiles on the planet. And it's going to get a lot worse. As living standards rise in the developing world, so does its fondness for meat and dairy. Annual per-capita meat consumption in developing countries doubled from 31 pounds in 1980 to 62 pounds in 2002, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, which expects global meat production to more than double by 2050. That means the environmental damage of ranching would have to be cut in half just to keep emissions at their current, dangerous level.

It isn't enough to improve mileage standards or crack down on diesel truck emissions, as politicians at both the state and national levels are working to do. Eventually, the United States and other countries are going to have to clean up their agricultural practices, while consumers can do their part by cutting back on red meat.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-methane15oct15,0,1365993.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

[glowing]

1. Support small local farmers...

My family that had the dairy farm (had since they couldn't keep floating it) would use the manure on the fields that they hayed.... this returned nutrients to the soil... Smelled like shit, but was a great fertilizer. Smaller farms have less disease and more attention. The cows are pasture grazed. Much better for everyone all around. Factory farms are horrible. The mounds of shit that are collected, can actually catch on fire because of the heat it can generate. Eat less meat and dairy and support the small farmers who have been there for generations and know how to produce healty products.

[kestrel91316]

6. Feedlots certainly generate more methane than pastures do.

In a feedlot, all that manure that gets piled so high and deep and turns to soupy muck from the urine and rain - it undergoes anaerobic fermentation like a swamp, which generates methane. In a pasture, the small piles of cow manure are exposed to air for the most part so they undergo aerobic breakdown (composting), which does not generate methane.

Cows in both places DO generate methane which they belch and fart out. Good reason to consume less beef, period. But consume grass-fed rather than conventional feedlot beef where you can.

[unpossibles]

2. because no one wants to discuss it

I've tried, and you'll probably be attacked.

I don't udnerstand the difficulty of trying to shop more locally from small farms when people do eat meat (which will be more expensive), or just cutting down meat consumption greatly. It's not a PETA thing, it's an attempt to reduce footprint thing, but few want to hear that message. There's nothing wrong with us being omnivores, but there are many things wrong with our current factory farming techniques, and we're just starting to realize the problems.

[pnutbutr]

4. depends on where you live

It's fairly easy for those who live in the country to go to local farms. I'm lucky enough to live in a place where I can drive no more than 10 miles and have gone to local organic farms for fruits and veggies, milk, eggs, and meats of any and all kinds. Those who live in the cities or in areas that have driven out the small farmers with development will find it much more difficult.

[unpossibles]

7. true

I live in a city, but then I've been a vegetarian for almost 2 decades. We have a good farmer's market in our neighborhood too. Check out those or health food stores. Many carry local or at least organic meats and produce as well as sometimes having local.

[Kolesar]

3. I think peak oil is going to roll us back into a century-long Depression where we survive on oatmeal

Learn how to dress a deer.

[XemaSab]

5. Oatmeal? More like pinole

We're going to be LOVING them acorns after peak oil. :9

[NickB79]

9. Hey, acorn flour can be good if you get all the tannins out

Just don't try to eat red oak acorns, even the squirrels ignore those until there's nothing else left.

The occasional acorn grub just adds extra protein to boot :9

[XemaSab]

8. Here we go:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/clay79.html