Livestock Responsible for 20% of Greenhouse Gasses

[nosmokes]

we really do need to get the monkey of cheap tortured beef off our backs before it kills us - and the planet. i enjoy a steak as much as the next guy, probably more, since i know where it was raised, who raised it, what it ate and that it came from just down the road not another hemisphere. and i only eat about 3 or 4 a year. it doesn't make me better than anyone else, it'ss just that i believe you hafta examine the choices you make, especially those that impact this rock so directly as the food we eat. i'll get off my soapbox now.
--###--

original-reuters

FAO report creates a stink over farm animals
Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:20 PM ET

By Robin Pomeroy

ROME (Reuters) - Farm animals are responsible for almost a fifth of the pollution blamed for global warming, a United Nations report said on Wednesday, warning that the livestock sector posed a growing environmental threat.

Gases from manure and flatulence, deforestation to make grazing land and the energy used in farming meant livestock produced 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that trapped heat in the atmosphere, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said.

In its report "Livestock's long shadow", the FAO said a projected doubling of global meat production to 465 million tonnes in 2050 and a similar rise in milk output would mean the sector would have to address its effect on climate.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation," said the FAO's Henning Steinfeld, the report's senior author.
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Interesting.

Now to genetically engineer a cow with less gas.

[nosmokes]

7. ok, now that 's funny.

snarky. but funny. wassup bah?

[LiberalEsto]

8. Just feed them Bean-o

Problem solved!

[undeterred]

29. That's exactly what I was thinking!

Lots of Bean-O

[Odin2005]

41. It aint the cow that makes the gas, it's the cow's gut bacteria.

Cows needs methanogenic and fermenting bacteria to digest tough plant material.

[PreacherCasey]

2. I was not aware of that. Thanks. nt

[Coventina]

3. Thanks, nosmokes, for recognizing the problem.

The livestock raised for slaughter is a disaster from start to finish: ecologically, morally and health-wise.

[Kali]

35. Broad brush slam much?

I raise beef cattle. I provide benefits to my local community both aesthetically and economically. I work to enhance and sustain the land I depend on (in the family for over 120 years, by the way). Morality is obviously a subjective judgement, but I think I am a moral honest and generally good person, I treat my animals with respect and provide good care. Beef can be a part of a healthy diet just as easily as it can be modified to the point of being unhealthy. Like anything else. Thanks for your opinion, even though it is wrong in many situations, especially mine.

[nosmokes]

37. I'm referring to *factory farmed* or CAFO animals, thus the term cheap.

look,if you're raising your beef in a sustainable /bio-intensive/organic manner, allowing them free range, no hormones, no antibiotics unless sick and then removed from the herd until well and not marketed for 4 mos, only fed vegetarian(preferably organic) forage with an occasional supplement of some silage or something, then obviously you fall into the category of responsible producers that we need to cultivate, support, and pay the premium price for the quality of your beef. i do know enough about cattle operations to know that requires a lot of extra work than the so called conventional methods, and i know from first hand experience, though limited, that work on a ranch is for real work. and i also know that feed-lots and beef producers w/ herds in the thousands where anti-biotics and bone meal are routinely part of the diet and the animals are finished off for a few weeks while standing in a pool of shit and piss and practically being force-fed corn and other grains to fatten em up before slaughter is neither healthy, moral,aesthetically beneficial, sustainable and should not be supported by anyone with a conscience.

[Kali]

38. we agree then

I just hate being included int he CAFO group and have the personal need to point out the difference when I see comments like that. Most folk don't have a clue and it is important to get the message out, but please be careful to include the fact that there ARE alternatives when educating about the problems of intensive meat production. Otherwise those of us trying to do it right will never have a chance.

[nosmokes]

39. i'm sorry - i thought i had...

i am always trying to make the point that if you truly care about the environment probably the most important thing you can do is get off the fast food/processed food/corporate food addiction and go organic/go local/go fair trade.

going local and organic opens up a whole new world for most folks. getting to know the people that actually *make* their food is a real eye opener. being able to take their kids out to the farm where a lot of what sits on their dinner plate is a great education, and it usually results in kids eating more of their veggies. and when you can keep your food dollars local instead of sending them off to the giant chemical/ag multinats then everyone comes ahead.

[Kali]

40. yep

:thumbsup:

gardening too if you are inclined/have the space

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Yes, but to get rid of auto emissions is to make more 'room'

for cow methane. People will do what is most convenient for them switching to a car with low or zero emissions (if the price can be made accessible) is more likely to happen than people giving up meat, imho.

[lapfog_1]

5. The article mentions 3 components...

manure and flatulence, deforestation, and energy used in feed production.

How much does each contribute?

How was this calculation done?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Techincally...

the manure and flatulence add zero net carbon dioxide.

[Selatius]

12. You are right.

The only thing putting more carbon dioxide into circulation is pulling up carbon trapped in the crust in the form of crude oil and coal.

[lapfog_1]

13. Yes, that's what I thought too.

So the remaining components are deforestation for pasture, which has two components...
1) The decomposition (in a short period of time) of the trees which were cut down (release stored carbon).
2) the inability of the forest to store future CO2 because the forest is no more.

#1 is similar to the cows eating grass in the pasture, though a case could be made for how rapid the release is.
#2 is the real culprit, but then is similar to any deforestation anywhere... and should be treated the same

and the other component is the oil energy used to create farm products (cattle feed) used.

[twilight_sailing]

10. 3 components... How much does each contribute?

Good point.

[Ezlivin]

9. What if you don't use your livestock to commute to work?

[madokie]

11. seeing that photo makes me laugh

blazing saddles has to be a classic and not just for the flatulence scene

[MazeRat7]

14. You dont have to be a vegetarian to make a difference....

If meat eaters would make a commitment to only eat animals once or twice / week, the factory farming and cruel conditions our animals endure would be reduced significantly.

There will always be those unenlightened folks that think of animals only as food oblivious to the horrific conditions they endure in the feed lots, dairy farms, and slaughter houses. But for regular caring folks with compassion toward other living beings that are unsure how to live "without meat"... dont sweat it. Nobody says you have to...just start by making a commitment to eat fewer dead animals. Thats is really different from not eating "any" dead animals.

Being vegetarian is not for everyone, but reducing the number of dead animals in your diet is something that should be easily achievable for anyone that really wants to make a difference.

Give it a try and be happy that for every bit of beef, ham, chicken you don't eat - some animal gets to be an animal and not your food.

MZr7

Here is a link to a very popular video to help you Meet your Meat

[Kali]

27. Better yet buy from a local producer. Then you can have your beef and eat it too.

:9

http://www.eatwild.com/
http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csa.shtml

[12string]

15. animal pollution

another not widely known tidbit,beef and chicken farms are a
very significant source of groundwater pollution.

[Broken_Hero]

24. Welcome to DU

and you make a great point. In SW Missouri, Tyson and Simmons are chicken plants, and they are always in the news for polluting the underground water supply around her, primarily underground springs...

[Kali]

33. That is not animal polution it is factory polution.

Animal shit used to be called FERTILIZER. In a sustainable farming culture, all nutrients are valued rather than viewed as polution or a problem to be solved.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

16. It comes down to an issue of overpopulation

The more people on the earth, the more cows we have to grow unnaturally to feed the evergrowing population.

[nosmokes]

17. we don't need cows to feed people.

in fact beef is about the least efficient way of getting protein to people, requiring literally tons more resources than plant protein. and we can still have meat in our diet, but not this quasi meat product that is raised under inhumane factory conditions, but you will have to pay more for it, and eat a whole lot less of it.

[TX-RAT]

18. So you have allot of experience in the raising of cattle?

I'd love to hear it.

[nosmokes]

19. not much, no. a few head on the farm. but facts are facts

and it's a fact that you can feed a helluva lot more people by raising crops on x amount of acreage than beef with fewer resources.

[TX-RAT]

22. I have 1920 acres of pasture.

Are you suggesting plowing it all up?

[Kali]

30. Don't you know cows HAVE to be raised in confinement, fed human quality grain which

is grown using drinking water that could have been used to grow tofu? :sarcasm:

[TX-RAT]

36. They need to see my place.

They'll get the shock of their life. 62 head that feed on whatever they find, no supplemental feeding, well water, and their as healthy as, pardon the expression, "a Horse". They don't go to feed lots, most are bought by locals and processed locally.

[TX-RAT]

21. requiring literally tons more resources than plant protein.

Please explain.

[Jcrowley]

25. Eating fossil fuels

The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average of 50 times the energy input of traditional agriculture.5 In the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or more.6

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

·        31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

·        19% for the operation of field machinery

·        16% for transportation

·        13% for irrigation

·        08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

·        05% for crop drying

·        05% for pesticide production

·        08% miscellaneous8

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.

To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.

 Of course, this is only a rough comparison to aid comprehension of the energy requirements for modern agriculture.

In a very real sense, we are literally eating fossil fuels. However, due to the laws of thermodynamics, there is not a direct correspondence between energy inflow and outflow in agriculture. Along the way, there is a marked energy loss. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input to agriculture increased 4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold.11 Since then, energy input has continued to increase without a corresponding increase in crop yield. We have reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil degradation, increased demands of pest management and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:FQfCKTISvZUJ:www.mountainsentinel.com/content/eatingfossilfuels.pdf+eating+fossil+fuels&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari

Fossil fuels

The industrial system is a poor converter of fossil energy. Fossil energy is a major input of intensive livestock production systems, mainly indirectly for the production of feed . Brand and Melman (1993) show in case studies that, typically, feed accounts for 70 to 75 percent of the total energy input except for veal production where it is almost 90 percent. Energy output for livestock products comprises food and non-food items. Southwell and Rothwell (1977) calculated output/input ratios of 0. 38, 0. 11 and 0. 32 for pork, poultry and eggs respectively, considering fossil energy only.

A large portion of non-food energy output is in the form of manure and the potential for recovery of this energy in the form of methane has greatly increased in recent years. The heavy concentration of animals in certain regions, particularly of pigs and poultry, has given rise to the development of large- scale processing for use elsewhere. Most problems lie in high energy expenditure for drying and for transport.

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/LEAD/X6145E/X6145E00.HTM

[Kali]

28. WRONG.

Ruminants are actually very LOW on the food chain. Cattle are capable of digesting plant material that CANNOT be used by humans, in fact that is much better FOR them than grains. We may not absolutely NEED them but when raised sustainably they are an EXCELLENT source of high quality protien and other nutrients. They are also highly adaptable to human management and therefore an excellent tool for RESTORING degraded land.

[goforit]

20. Humans produce gas as well,so how can we control the amount of methane

leaving our own bodies?

Less sugar and carbohydrates which produce bad gas-emitting-bacteria ?

More yogurt to kill the bad bacteria in our bodies?

We all should have inner reflection on how each one of us have to take action of our own lives.

[Lusted4]

23. Time to patent my strap-on fart filter. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Thankfully, If They Attack the Other 80% The 20% From The Livestock Would Be Acceptable, And I Could

still enjoy my steak.

Mmmmmmmm.... Steak.....

:)

[Kali]

31. Save the cows - ban TERMITES!

[Eurobabe]

32. Mother Earth is probably going to unleash a wicked virus

on all of us FLATULENTS -- to save herself!

[warrens]

34. The move against factory farming is gaining steam

Particularly as it relates to cattle. It's just a crappy way to treat them, and it produces a wealth of nasty byproducts, this being one. That figure sounds too high to me, but it's significant even if it is half that. Cattle are going to belch, no matter what (it's belching that coughs up the methane, btw, or at least the bulk of it), but concentrating them for months in feedlots is a bad idea.