Want To Fight Climate Change? Stop Cows From Burping

sciencehabit writes: A simple supplement to a cow's feed could substantially decrease a major source of methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas, a new study suggests. Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth's climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity. That makes cows tempting targets for methane reduction efforts. In a new study, researchers added the chemical 3-nitrooxypropanol, also known as 3NOP, to the corn-and-alfalfa-based feed of 84 milk-producing Holsteins and monitored their methane production for 12 weeks—the largest and longest such trial of its type in lactating cows, the scientists say. For cows whose feed included 3NOP, methane emissions dropped, on average, by 30%.

Comments

But ... but ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... this measure doesn't involve:

• -hating Republicans, or
• -making people who aren't me give up stuff

So how is that any fun, I ask you?!?

Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here?

[Gadget_Guy]

Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference. If we find eight ways to make 1.2% savings across different areas then that is nearly a 10% reduction in the human generation of greenhouse gases. The human race isn't limited to finding just one method to solve the climate change problem. If we make small savings across the board with cost-effective, manageable solutions then we don't have to solve the problem with a single grand gesture that ends up costing a lot of money.

And what are the problems that you envisage implementing this? The article says:

Larger tests will be needed to see if detrimental effects crop up over the long term

I find it interesting that you have already found out what the problems are before scientists have managed to do any studies.

30% of 4% is 1.2%

[vortex2.71]

30% of 4% is 1.2%. 1.2% is not worth writing a story about.

Bullshit

[Karmashock]

1st. Cow burps are only relevant to the extent that cow burps are fueled by sequestered carbon... if you're feeding them with grain that is produced with petro chemical fertilizers then an argument can be made there. However, if the cattle are not getting their food from those sources then whatever the cattle are doing is not relevant.

2nd. Methane has a short life in the atmosphere... really CO2's life is over estimated but methane's is quite a bit shorter.

3rd. Which meat are we going to shift to instead? And I'll noted that cattle, pigs, chickens all eat different things and properly employed can be raised in very different environments. Look at Australian cattle. Try to raise chickens on that.

Frankly I smell the yeasty scent of the anti meat progressive lobby in this... take your hacky sacks... and fuck off.

Do you know what percentage of vegetarians admitted to eating meat in the last 24 hours in recent polls? Over 70 percent. And that's in 24 hours... and that's what they admitted to... lets just drop the pretenses here... humans eat meat.

Move on.

Re:Bullshit

[pD-brane]

I agree that this study does not suggest to become a vegetarian. However, less meat consumption (and other animal products, to a lesser extent) would help as well, of course.

I am a vegetarian to offset anthropogenic climate change. Others should join me, or decrease their meat production at least. First a warning: there might be potential side effects like you eat more healthy or animal welfare. Some people feel comfortable being a vegan. I don't ask people to do something that would make them unhappy. But they can try to do something. Really try it, and then decide what would be best for both you and the rest of us.

I will probably be modded down by the "pro meat conservative lobby".

There will always be cows, so I also encourage these kind of studies as well.

One small step... [Re:How do you...]

[Geoffrey.landis]

The whole idea that cow burps could produce enough carbon to destroy the planet is why so many people deny even the possibility that emitting industrial quantities of carbon can change the climate. It just makes the whole issue sound ridiculous. Methane may be 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, but because of its reactivity it does not persist in the atmosphere in the same way.

There's some insight in that comment-- compared to the 40 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by combustion of coal, the amount of warming by cows is small. However, although it is smaller effect, it is not negligible contributes. According to the original article:

Each year worldwide, the methane produced by cud-chewing livestock warms Earth’s climate by the same amount as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a little more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

So, here's a way to affect 4% of the problem (not solve, but affect), with no effect on standard of living whatsoever-- it's a small step, but with essentially no cost: cow methane production is of no economically value.

What bothers me, however, is that the article is talking about burps, while the problem is cow emissions. Not all cow methane emissions are burps.