Less grass means less gas, cattle researcher says (Canada dot com)

[Dogmudgeon]

An issue http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x177491">from another post about methane release by cattle raised for beef. With a tip of the hat to groovedaddy and kestrel91316.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=782eb88c-4695-44a8-839f-d1660752a8ce">Less grass means less gas, cattle researcher says

Linda Shepertycki, Winnipeg Free Press
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008

WINNIPEG - A University of Manitoba scientist says he's figured out how to cut the amount of greenhouse gas belching from cows by as much as 200 litres a day - feed them grain instead of grass.

For the past four years, Prof. Ermias Kebreab has been analyzing cow burps at the National Centre for Livestock and the Environment south of Winnipeg to measure the amount of methane dairy cows produce when they are fed different types of food.

About 98 per cent of the methane from a cow is emitted through its mouth - "only two per cent comes out the other way," said Kebreab.

...

The grass-fed cows produced 600 to 700 litres of methane per day compared to about 500 litres per day per grain-fed cow, said Kebreab.

This isn't the first study showing an increase in methane from grass-fed cattle. The proposed mechanism is that cellulose (plant fiber) takes longer to digest in the cows' stomachs, allowing methane to be generated by fermentation.

This directly contradicts the prevailing notion that sugars in grain are fermented in the cows' stomachs and produce methane at a much higher rate than grass does.

Questions that will be raised with the recent studies:

1. The methodology in every such study I've seen -- three so far -- measures belched methane, from the mouth. Methane in flatus was not measured, but Prof. Kebreab states that 98% of the methane comes out the front, not the back. Critics will challenge this assertion and the methodology of only recording the belched methane.

2. One study was funded by a dairy institute, which has a financial interest in feeding cows grain instead of grass. The funding sources will have to be scrutinized, although there is no reason to assume that this is a "purchased" scientific finding.

If you see anything else about this, please post it.

--p!

[Taverner]

1. why we don't hook devices to cow's asses is beyond me

Theoretically its possible - capture their noxious fumes, and turn them into energy

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Nothing new under the sun...

I suspect the required plumbing isn't too pleasant for cows, though: In their study, the researchers attached balloon-like plastic packs to the backs of at least 10 cows. A tube running to the animals´ stomachs collected the gas inside the backpacks, which were then hung from the roof of the corral for analysis.

Nice.

[Taverner]

6. Work it!!!

Thar's GOLD in those sphincters!

[joshcryer]

12. There was a great show called Sea Quest DSV where beef was banned for that reason.

The only beef you could get was with cows that had fart containment. I'll never forget the scene where Roy Schnider took someones illegally acquired beef hamburger (that they'd spent a considerably savings on), and had one huge bite out of it. Great show. Interesting premise, and quite ahead of its time with regards to global warming.

[Eric J in MN]

2. Growing corn involves tools which produce greenhouse gases.

Grass grows naturally in some places.

[XemaSab]

9. Not to mention that cows

evolved to eat grass, and grain upsets their stomachs, meaning they have to be given MORE antibiotics.

This also implies more feedlots and less pasturage.

[joshcryer]

13. But the majority of the worlds grass fed beef comes from "slash and burn" Brazil.

Yaknow, whole swaths of rainforest burnned down to sell "healthy grass fed beef" to Europe. There are so many variables to this that it's an incredible delimma.

[rudy23]

3. Don't tell me there'll be less ass, too!

Now none of us will ride for free!

[excess_3]

5. the global-warming food-tax,

is going to be unpopular
with the poor

[Dead_Parrot]

7. A few more details would be nice...

I've stumbled into this paper which covers a few more bases - "whole cow" emissions of CH₄ and CO₂, background, transition and completion measurements taken as the diet is changed with over a month of each stage, and a chemical breakdown of the feeds used.

Sadly this is a barley vs corn study, but it's the sort of thing I'd like to see on a pasture vs grain study. Then we can look at some lifecycle emissions for feed production and cook up a fuller picture.

As for the premise that grain is better than pasture... I dunno. It seems counter-intuitive, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

:shrug:

[tabatha]

8. Grass-fed have higher levels of Omega-3.

Grain-fed have higher levels of Omega-6.

Grass-fed would be better.

That is actually more natural.

[Kali]

10. from that article, the study conveniently leaves out the contributions of growing that grain

I would guess that the savings of less than 1 or 2% of the total amount of emissions from all factors by switching grass fed cows for grain fed, would be out weighed by the costs of raising that grain.

[joshcryer]

11. Since methane is over 20 times bigger a greenhouse gas, I would doubt that.