Slashdot Mirror
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%.
You are all cows! Cows burp. BUUUUUUUURP! BUUUUUUURP! Buurp cows BUUUUURP! Burp say the cows. YOU BURPING COWS!!
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.
Global warming is a complex issue, with many factors and no easy answer. Because of this complexity it makes it easy for someone to just not believe it is true, because the complexity it too much for any one person to handle. It is more complex than switching to solar panels, and electric cars, and stopping cows from having gas.
Fixing these issues requires changing culture, which is hard, and will create a lot of people resistant to changes, they will hire a lot of people to make their point across, to convince others.
We have a lot of science, and we need more... However I think one thing is needed isn't finding a silver bullet, is to counter the destructive marketing with more counter marketing. Many of the colleges and universities who are doing a lot of science on the topic, also have business schools and programs. Get a handful of those MBA and Public relation majors onto your grant, to help spread the information to help change the culture.
I have seen major cultural changes happen due to effective marketing. From 2004 - 2015 where there was talk to make a constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriages, to it being legal in all states. The rise of smart phones and mobile connectivity...
Marking isn't always bad and trying to sell you products, it is also used to explain ideas. They are actually a lot of MBA students who are not about being money grubbing capitalists, but are about trying to make the world better. (MBA with considerations in not-for-profit is a popular track). These grant for science, should also be allocated to students who are trained to sell the ideas to the general population.
Showing a graph doesn't have impact on those who don't know how to read graphs.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you look at the raw temp data for the U.S. we have been in a cooling trend for the past 115 years
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/da...
If you compare the adjustments to the trend the adjustments are actually bigger than the error bars and larger than the raw data's trend.
What is it we are supposed to be mitigating ?
This chemical makes the feed more effective, and more of the nutrients gets digested by the cows. Why would farmers not want a more effective feed? How is that naive?
All the complaints here are predicated on the idea that this will cost a lot of money and that farmers will not be willing to pay for it so the it will have to be mandated by a government decree. Nobody has provided any evidence of these claims.
The scientists say that more studies need to be done on this subject, and that they still don't have all the answers. I don't claim to have all the answers. But the people who are against the idea seem to have all the answers; enough to judge this idea as unworkable and call anyone who wants them to justify their claims as naive, irrational, thoughtless and have no business commenting.
Generally, yes, but Methane has a far stronger Greenhouse Effect (IR Radiation absorption rate) than Carbon Dioxide. If we can convert the methane into CO2, that's actually probably going to reduce overall global warming.
Don't climate "scientists" have a personal bias invested in a certain outcome?
No. That's the argument made over and over again, but it isn't actually the way science works. In the long run, scientists gain kudos by getting the right answer. Despite the arguments of deniers, scientists aren't idiots.
And in the scientific community, the standard is: the more sensational the claim, the more evidence is required. And climate "science" has made some pretty sensational claims
Again, wrong. In some ways, the problem with actual climate science (not what's in the press, real science) is that the effect isn't sensational. The climate scientists are claiming that anthropogenic carbon dioxide has warmed the planet by on the order of one degree-- far too little for anybody to actually personally notice, although well measurable on a statistical basis. That's only a few percent of the natural greenhouse warming (which is well understood, and not at all controversial, even though it's exactly the same physics).
The reason that denial is so easy is that the effect is so small. Over the long term, of course, it does built up-- but that's brings in the argument "why should we do anything for posterity? What has posterity ever done for us?"
that have a history if not coming true.
Again, wrong. I've been tracking the predictions to data for several years now, and climate modelling still seems to be pretty good; tracking to well within statistical error. The only people who say it isn't are saying so by cherry-picking data that isn't statistically significant.
But we knew that: if the greenhouse effect didn't exist, the Earth would be a frozen snowball.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
The majority of the methane a cow produces is burped up rather than coming out the other end. That is from the microbial fermentation that takes place in the cows rumen.
The uppermost area of the rumen, the headspace, is filled with gases (such as methane, carbon dioxide, and, to a much lower degree, hydrogen) released from fermentation and anaerobic respiration of food. These gases are regularly expelled from the reticulorumen through the mouth, in a process called eructation.
I'm not particularly concerned about the methane released by cows and other ruminants because that is carbon from plants they eat that originally drew it from the air in the first place. So it doesn't add to the total carbon in the active carbon cycle like burning fossil fuels does which is the real problem. If all we were getting was some increased methane from raising more livestock it would be a minor problem that would hardly be worth worrying about if CO2 levels were still around 280 ppm. Far more concerning to me is the methane being released from organic matter in the permafrost and methane ices under the sea that's been sequestered from the active carbon cycle for a long time.