I was seeing vast fields of cattle as I drove recently, and something came to mind.?

Question

Down around Logan, Utah, there are huge cattle farms, and the methane pollution gets so bad driving has to be restricted. Saw the road signs on a visit there.

Methane from cattle is a Greenhouse Gas, but I never seem to hear about it, to speak of. Computer models all say CO2, CO2 CO2...never figure in what all the herds of cattle worldwide are doing not only producing CO2 as they breathe, but adding very large quantities of Methane, enough in some places to apparently cause visible smogs.

So, GW folks? Are so many cattle a problem, or not? What does the computer say? And what do scientists who deal with ALL the possible global warming gases say?

And has anybody added in all the methane lost in oil wells, and unburned in the vast flare-offs going on now?

Just curious, since it is supposedly a potent "greenhouse" gas, and yet I never hear of the computers figuring anything but about CO2. Wonder why?? Do I have a real beef?

*chuckle*, Vlad.

Hmmm...John...speaking of what computes, have you seen the latest changes in what the computers NOW say with an improved program and some actual real data...the very things the supressed minority have been screaming about for ever since I got interested in this issue.

What will happen if the computers are allowed historical data too??

You really should check the "loyal opposition" once in a while yourself, and see how many there are...and maybe their credentials also. I have.

White Organic Polish...I like beef too, tho in a slightly different presentation.

I am just asking why, when ruminants supposedly produce much methane, nobody has hollered about it. And yeah, we would need to go after the deer too, but that would prevent a lot of car accidents as a side benefit.

I noted one party says that the ruminants do not produce any methane, so need to check on the biology side,

Eat hearty!

Enders, thanks for the input. Where is my big boot and the Chlordane when we need it to save the World!! *grin* Good points.

Gwen, the citd paqge just says it is a major item nd ppaently increasing, but my question still remains, who re not the big players going after methane as well; never ehar about it in the news, and seldom in the questions asked, ot the answers.

Could we help by diminishing the huge wild deer herds to a low number by allowing more hunting, and thus help the warming abatement, plus far fewer car-deer accidents and a net savings of lives and property?

There is a herd of 25 or so that comes around here regularly, and does damage, but cannot touch them. And I had a van totaled a few years back on a herd of deer stretching clear across the roadway when I crested a hill.

But while human CO2 is being pushed, where are those pushing to control the wild deer, elk, moose, and bison herds? Or do they not emit methane as has been reported they do?

That is my point, I hear NOTHING popularly about CH4, only and always CO2. Why is not Mr. Gore pushing to reduce wild ruminant herds???

jdkilp...do not recall having made any comments as to odor!

jdkilp...do not recall having made any comments as to odor!

Answer 1

All the points you make are accurate and valid. There is however a clear distinction between what the scientists do and what the media reports on.

As one of those scientists I can confirm that greenhouse gases form all known sources are taken into consideration including methane production from cattle, mineral exploitation and flaring.

The cattle won't cause visible smogs as methane is an invisible gas, what you may be seeing is water vapour, especially when the weather is cold.

Enteric fermantation (cattle burping and farting) is the primary causes of methane and anually it's the equivalent of approx 1.5 billion tons of CO2 (4% of the global carbon equivalence emission). Mineral extraction, including oil wells and flaring, produces the carbon equivalent of approx 800 million tons of CO2 annually (2% of total).

These figures, along with many, many others, are quantified and accounted for when modelling.

CO2 is the primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas, this is where the media and policy makers like to focus their attention; it can give the misleading impression that it's the only greenhouse gas.

Answer 2

actually ch4 is an important part of GW and an important part of climate models. CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than water or CO2, due to the way it absorbs and emits IR light, so it takes less to make an impact. CH4 concentrations have increased about 50% in the last 100 years (due to refining, landfills, and mainly increased cattle populations). Where as CO2 has increased about 30%. CO2 is only believed to be responsible for about 55% of the "enhanced greenhouse effect". There are many other ghg's released from human activity in smaller amounts that are much more effective ghg's than methane.

methane is the 3rd most important gas in the greenhouse effect (due to low concentration) with water being first and co2 second.

Answer 3

The "methane from cows" myth is a joke--literally. A scientist at a conferance a couple of years ago gave a mock presentation as a way of poking fun at the so-called "skeptics." However, the really funny part is that the skeptics are so ignorant of science, they didn't realize it was a joke and started repeating the thing as if it were "evidence" against the facts of global warming and its established causes.

Just in case you still aren't sure--here's proof it's nonsense: Granted there are tens of millions of cattle around. BUT--before the rise of our industrial civilization and the colonization of regions like North America and Africa--there were fare MORE large grass eating animals (American buffalo, African wildebeast, etc.) than there are domestic cattle today. But the current global warming did not start until after all those populations of wild grass-eaters were decimated.

Answer 4

We do actually hear about methane, whether seriously or as a joke is another question. I've heard it about it a lot, actually. And that's why next to the oil & motor industries, corporate ranches/cattle farms are also being targeted as sources of global warming (among other wrongs that they've done).

Answer 5

So, they will probably say all the beef-eaters (myself included-GO-MEAT!) should stop buying and eating it to decrease the demand therefore decreasing the supply. Then of course we'll need to subsidize the ranchers for their losses through another tax increase and then plant soy beans on the land (fertilized by all that rich manure mind you) so we all have to eat vegan.

You know, I dig soy milk, and tofu in my smoothies and in a morning scramble, but it doesn't replace my love for a good juicy grass fed organic beef burger. I think we're looking in the wrong direction if we want our environment to improve.

Pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, farm-raised fish. Our government, FDA and FTC is telling us this is all safe. Say what? Since when has the government EVER approved something that truly cured, helped and healed ANYTHING? That's not what pays their mortgages and sends their kids to private school.

We push our farmers to grow more meat on less land. What happens? Mad Cow, soil erosion, water pollution to the point our earth cannot filter it, the need for antibiotics to treat unnatural illnesses in the animals, herbicides for the grain, pesticides for the bugs-good AND bad. Give those farmers more land to grow healthy meat for those who want it and cite the restaurants who show irresponsibility in what they provide the public. That's what's killing us and our environment.

I agree we use too much of everything. Look at restaurants. Are they calling them to decrease the portion sizes from 4 chicken breasts to just 1? No. Are they eliminating the conventionally grown foods to provide us with healthy, pesticide free organic alternatives? No. You know why? Because then our nation would get thin and off all the Rx drugs, then we'd have to start a tax to subsidize the poor out of work "Rx drug cartels".

Who's with me???

Answer 6

I forgot my name - So much much hate on blood on the dance floor just for there look and there message about Sexual Things. I think there ok. They have a good message that there sending out to everyone. I am now going to get a bunch of dislikes. The First thing that comes to my mind is my name. Jesse

Answer 7

Yes one would think the environmental scientist's are totally clueless as to the evil plans being hatched by cows to rid the planet of humans by methane poisoning.

Answer 8

Interesting question, but methane has no odor.

What you're smelling are sulfur and nitrogen compounds. Of course, there's methane, but your nose can't detect it.

Answer 9

when i drive by i see.... lunch!

and a couple of sofas.

gw is going to remove money and freedom from people. that's the only consequence.

if we believe the "experts", we're supposed to have famines, death, and parts of the world be uninhabitable due to man.....




....by the year 2000.

but global cooling never happened. even though the "irrefutable data collected over "30 years was proof it was occurring".


remember not ONE of the predictions made since the 60's has came to pass.

but global warming is "real".

Answer 10

You don't hear about methane? It's spelled out for you in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report http://www.ipcc.ch/ all you have to do is read it. Take a look at page 136 fig. 2.1