Slashdot Mirror
Can Cow Backpacks Reduce Global Methane Emissions? (bloomberg.com)
Slashdot reader schwit1 shares an article from Bloomberg which argues "It's time to have a conversation about flatulent cows."
"Enteric fermentation," or livestock's digestive process, accounts for 22 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, and the manure they produce makes up eight percent more, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency... Methane, like carbon, is a greenhouse gas, but methane's global warming impact per molecule is 25 times greater than carbon's, according to the EPA.
Cargill has tried capturing some of the methane released from cow manure by using domed lagoons, while researchers at Danone yogurt discovered they could reduce methane emissions up to 30% by feeding cows a diet rich in Omega-3 fatty acids (mostly from flax seed). But now Argentina researchers are testing plastic "methane backpacks" which they strap on to the back of cows, and according to the article "have been able to extract 300 liters of methane a day, enough to power a car or refrigerator."
Cargill has tried capturing some of the methane released from cow manure by using domed lagoons, while researchers at Danone yogurt discovered they could reduce methane emissions up to 30% by feeding cows a diet rich in Omega-3 fatty acids (mostly from flax seed). But now Argentina researchers are testing plastic "methane backpacks" which they strap on to the back of cows, and according to the article "have been able to extract 300 liters of methane a day, enough to power a car or refrigerator."
Maybe you should learn not to jump to conclusions lest you show yourself to be the moron.
The backpack manages to capture and collect the gases emitted through the cow’s mouth or intestinal tract via a tube inserted through the cow’s skin (which the researchers claim is painless).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Maybe you should learn not to jump to conclusions lest you show yourself to be the moron.
The backpack manages to capture and collect the gases emitted through the cow’s mouth or intestinal tract via a tube inserted through the cow’s skin (which the researchers claim is painless).
It still sounds like a lot of stress for the cows. Their lives are miserable enough, adding this stuff would only make matters worse for them. Stress for a cow probably means less milk yield, and a longer growth period before it is ripe for McDonald's. Hell, it's like developing colostomy bags for cows.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
... and a longer growth period before it is ripe for McDonald's.
What would McDonalds want with a cow?
So please tell us what happened to the 2 quadrillion pounds of ice that melted from JUST Greenland in JUST 3 years.
https://weather.com/news/clima...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Right, because the healthiest looking people on the planet are the vegetarians . . .
Also pretty awesome that you just blamed the three things that pretty much kill anyone who dies from 'natural causes' and blamed it on cow meat. You know vegetarians die from those exact same things in pretty much the exact same numbers ... RIGHT?
Nut job much?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Look you can be vegan or whatever if you want, but I think I'll take the risk and eat my juicy barbecued steak. As for the methane : it contribute only roughly 25% of the warming that CO2 does. The reason are simple : the half life of methane in the atmosphere is short and the quantity of methane are 1/200 of those of CO2. And then enteric fermentation is barely above 16% of total methane emission (all farm animals counted, not only cows). Coal mining , oil drilling and treatment is above that , about 19%. Then there are other sources, rice cultivation (12%), waste treatment and landfill (12%), burning of biomass (9%) look up wiki if you wish for more details and more importantly : the sources of citations. Sure we should keep in check, as long as we don't concentrate on "cow" and follow other venue , like reducing coal and oil CO2/Methane emissions.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'll just leave this here... "Meat is Murder. Vegetarianism is Genocide." http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id...
In what world is 300 litres (presumed at STP) per day of natural gas enough to power a car? Even in something rather efficient like a Honda Civic, that's still only enough for about 5 km per day, or ~2000 km per year.
[300 L/d of methane] * [0.0364 MJ/L of methane] / [34.2 MJ/L of gasoline] = [0.319 L/d of gasoline equivalent]
[0.319 L/d of gasoline] / [6 L / 100 km (fuel economy of a modern compact sedan)] = [5.32 km/d]
You might want to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On the other hand . . . good old Jacob Bronowski taught us the eating meat was a very important step in the Ascent of Man. Meat is a more concentrated form of protein, and freed up time to work on other stuff, besides food collection in the stone ages.
That is a pretty outdated view in paleoanthropology. It's up there with "Man the Hunter" and "Meat Made us Human". To spare you the mountain of scientific articles, books, and studies on paleonutrition conducted by archaeologists (not those insane popular "paleo" journalistic writers), here is a Scientific American article explaining how your ancient "man" most likely arose from the ability to cook food and consume starches:
"Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians" http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
You only need to look at any studies of ancient fiber consumption (derived from coprolite data) to arrive at the conclusion that our ancestors (recent and in the deep past) ate a shit-load of plants. Something like 10 times what the average westerner would eat on average.
According to the estimates of the INPE researchers, dams are the largest single anthropogenic source of methane, being responsible for 23% of all methane emissions due to human activities.
https://www.internationalriver...
Thus irrigation for crops is worse on the environment than cows.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
That's been pretty much disproved. The real culprits seem to be flour and sugar. Enjoy your vegetarian diet.
"Disproved"? If you don't believe in science, then perhaps the evidence isn't very strong. If you read newspapers and industry sponsored "scientific journalism", you might also think there are health benefits to eating meat. For everyone who does believe in science however, start your investigation here:
Diet Patterns and Mortality: Common Threads and Consistent Results Marjorie L. McCullough Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA J. Nutr. June 1, 2014. vol. 144 no. 6 795-796 http://jn.nutrition.org/conten...
Below are a handful more studies (with lifestyle, age, location, and income adjustments included) that all suggest that meat/dairy is the primary cause of the major diseases we are discussing. Even when you adjust to include "junk-food vegans", you see that they come out ahead. It's not just processed foods that are to blame, although an increased consumption of processed foods is linked to elevated heart disease in all populations.
M L McCullough. Diet patterns and mortality: common threads and consistent results. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):795-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717365
M A Martinez-Gonzalez, A Sanchez-Tainta, D Corella, J Salas-Salvado, E Ros, F Aros, E Gomez-Gracia, M Fiol, R M Lamuela-Raventos, H Schroder, J Lapetra, L Serra-Majem, X Pinto, V Ruiz-Gutierrez, Ramon Estruch for the PREDIMED Group. A provegetarian food pattern and reduction in total mortality in the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May 28;100(Supplement 1):320S-328S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871477
J Reedy, S M Krebs-Smith, P E Miller, A D Liese, L L Kahle, Y Park, A F Subar. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):881-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039
G E Fraser, D J Shavlik. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797
Thousands of peer-reviewed papers based on the large-scale studies below support the treating of lifestyle diseases by reducing or eliminating animal product consumption, paired with an increased consumption of whole plant-based foods. These are clinically valid paths to eliminating the diseases, which are most often more effective than prescription drugs, which are geared toward relieving symptoms (e.g. statins) but not the underlying causes of disease.
Large scale, long-term studies:
PREDIMED Studies: http://www.predimed.es/publica...
The Adventist Health Studies: https://publichealth.llu.edu/a...
The China Studies: https://scholar.google.com/sch...
The Nurses Health Study: http://www.nurseshealthstudy.o...
The EPIC Study: http://epic.iarc.fr/
When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop. To anyone with a scientific mind, modern nutritional-science's data should pretty much indict animal based foods as the direct cause of obesity, along with the consumption of heavily processed foods. It's no wonder that the nations with the highest meat consumption have the highest rates of lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
A
to the guy in the adjoining cubicle? Billable to the taco truck.
Last time I checked, Vegans don't eat 21+kg of seafood per year (which is down from traditional amounts), 18+kg of pork, and 7kg of beef per year
I'm blowing my chance at moderating this story, just so I can say this: There's not a damn thing you can say or scientific study you can point to that will make me stop eating meat. Even if it meant becoming a "second amendment person" (thanks, Trump) and hunting animals, I would. I could watch a PETA "Meat is Murder" propaganda video while chomping down on a burger and it wouldn't faze me in the least. Like religion and most republican policies, my decision to eat meat isn't based on reason or logic. It's based on a deep carnal desire to devour animal flesh, compounded with my belief that it's also delicious.
If you truly were satisfied with your lifestyle choice, you wouldn't feel the need to seek validation by attempting to convince others to come to the same conclusion.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go put a "I'm with Her" sticker on my economy car, and then order some meaty Tuscan pasta on my iPhone from Pizza Hut.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Australian researchers have developed an inoculation against some of the most common methanogenic bacteria found in sheep, supposedly reducing their methane output by about a third. It also makes a small amount of extra food available for the sheep to utilize. I don't know if this has made it out of the laboratory and into farms as yet (if ever).
On the other hand . . . good old Jacob Bronowski taught us the eating meat was a very important step in the Ascent of Man. Meat is a more concentrated form of protein, and freed up time to work on other stuff, besides food collection in the stone ages.
Meat is great for the hunter/gatherer who has the scrounge for food because you can eat the bird that found and ate the berries without having to find the berries yourself. Per calorie, hunting meat gives you more calories per calorie expended than hunting berries. So yes, it gave us slightly more time but the real time saving was agriculture. Raising crops gave us ton more calories per time expended. Raising almost any type of edible crop is far more efficient that raising or hunting for meat. If you look at modern humans, most modern humans ate primarily grains and supplemented here and there with meat and they have been doing this 20k+ years. You would have to go back further than written history to get to primarily meat eating ancestors. There are obviously exceptions but these exceptions are not in the areas that grew into modern society. Modern society grew out of a stable, stay in one place agricultural society. It was the agricultural society that gave us the extra manpower to advance.
When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop
Many of those articles like "Prevalence of obesity is low in people who do not eat meat. " is like saying "people who don't watch tv are less violent". There is a huge selection bias going on. Most people who don't eat meat or eat "whole food based diets" or almost any fad diet, yeah, they might cut out fat, or bread, or some other random bad guy but they also almost all cut out processed sugar. It's the sugar not the meat and fat that is killing us.
From the summary:
Methane, like carbon, is a greenhouse gas
Carbon is a solid, not a gas.
A molecule of methane includes carbon.
Or, is carbon now synonymous with carbon dioxide?
You know how they say that in ancient times, hunter-gatherer societies used all the parts of an animal? Very soon we can put them to shame. :-)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You only need to look at any studies of ancient fiber consumption (derived from coprolite data) to arrive at the conclusion that our ancestors (recent and in the deep past) ate a shit-load of plants. Something like 10 times what the average westerner would eat on average.
They did that because they had to. We also know that virtually nothing in nature is actually a vegetarian. Almost everything is either carnivorous or omnivorous. Deer eat whole nests full of baby birds, for example. Dee-lish! I'm a vegetarian except for baby birds is the new I'm a vegan except for blue cheese and bacon. Meat is efficient and there are no vegetarian indigenous peoples. There may have been some, but they were probably eaten by some meat eaters in their cannibal phase.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Methane, like carbon, is a greenhouse gas, but methane's global warming impact per molecule is 25 times greater than carbon's, according to the EPA.
I assume they mean carbon dioxide, right? Because if they're talking about pure carbon, I can't imagine it stays airborne for long enough to have much of an impact.
Maybe that's why it's so much less effective than methane.
It's no wonder that the nations with the highest meat consumption have the highest rates of lifestyle diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.
And the longest life expectancies.
Don't forget that....