Slashdot Mirror
Can We Reduce Cow Methane Emissions By Breeding Low-Emission Cattle? (popsci.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Popular Science:
Raising cattle contributes to global warming in a big way. The animals expel large amounts of methane when they burp and fart, a greenhouse gas many times more potent than carbon dioxide. U.S. beef production, in fact, roughly equals the annual emissions of 24 million cars, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. That's a lot of methane... Researchers think there may be a better way. Rather than ask people to give up beef, they are trying to design more climate-friendly cattle.
The goal is to breed animals with digestive systems that can create less methane. One approach is to tinker with the microbes that live in the rumen, the main organ in the animals' digestive tract... Scientists in the United Kingdom last year found that a cow's genes influence the makeup of these microbial communities, which include bacteria and also Archaea, the primary producers of methane. This discovery means cattle farmers potentially could selectively breed animals that end up with a lower ratio of Archaea-to-bacteria, thus leading to less methane... "The selection to reduce methane emissions would be permanent, cumulative and sustainable over generations as with any other trait, such as growth rate, milk yield, etc. used in animal breeding." This, over time, "would have a substantial impact on methane emissions from livestock," Roehe said.
Breeding low-emission cattle would also make it cheaper to raise cattle -- and improve the quality of meat.
The goal is to breed animals with digestive systems that can create less methane. One approach is to tinker with the microbes that live in the rumen, the main organ in the animals' digestive tract... Scientists in the United Kingdom last year found that a cow's genes influence the makeup of these microbial communities, which include bacteria and also Archaea, the primary producers of methane. This discovery means cattle farmers potentially could selectively breed animals that end up with a lower ratio of Archaea-to-bacteria, thus leading to less methane... "The selection to reduce methane emissions would be permanent, cumulative and sustainable over generations as with any other trait, such as growth rate, milk yield, etc. used in animal breeding." This, over time, "would have a substantial impact on methane emissions from livestock," Roehe said.
Breeding low-emission cattle would also make it cheaper to raise cattle -- and improve the quality of meat.
If you’re not a religious environmentalist, your cows' methane emissions are not a sin.
There are about 270 million cars in the US. Better to switch to electric and continue enjoying your ribeye steak.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can we get people to stop putting growth hormone and constant antibiotics into cows, and feed them properly as well?
Can We Reduce Cow Methane Emissions By Breeding Low-Emission Cattle?
The answer is in the question, isn't it? Bold mime. How did this make it to Slashdot?
Mooooooo!
This is news for nerds, stuff that matters... why are *you* on Slashdot? Fox News might satisfy more your limited interests!
Tastier, makes better jerky, leaner, can be raised faster/reproduces quicker, requires less space, requires less food, requires less energy.
Pretty much a full-out win.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Giant cow-emission scandal uncovered, cows had secret genes installed to only give low emissions when under laboratory testing.
Never heard of milk?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Cows producing octane.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
This was the premise of the movie Okja.
feed them proper grass and neither corn nor soy beans... problem solved
Lots of these sub-debates on cleanup miss the underlying point:
We're digging up carbon/methane to get our fuels currently, and that's the net cause of the overall warming.
Yes, cows produce CO2/Methane from their gut bacteria. Those same bacteria would still produce those same gasses without cows, just with rotting vegetation. Getting rid of cows wouldn't fix the underlying biological systems, from too much carbon in general floating around, and 'fixing' cows doesn't do much about the whole system that cattle is emblematic of.
The real (environmental) issue with cattle is that we transport everything they eat, and basically everything about them, with vehicles burning fuel dug up from previously sequestered hydrocarbons.
At every stage, we're pushing the planet VERY QUICKLY back in atmospheric time to a more carbon-heavy atmosphere, trapping more energy over time, and essentially recreating several kinds of mass extinction scenarios, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's cool that we're finding some ways to staunch the flow of some greehouse effects - but unless we're sequestering the carbon in some way, it's still going to cycle back around and have mostly the same effect over time - and we're going to have to work harder to 'fight' those net effects. In other words, we're fighting the symptoms, not the underlying at-large causes.
Ryan Fenton
It's not the cow that is the problem, it's the bacteria.
Cows are big and take a long time to reproduce - 9 months to give birth, then 7 months to become fertile.
Bacteria are small, easier to fiddle with their genetics, and can reproduce in minutes.
Doesn't take a genius to figure out that we should be genetically engineering the Archaea DNA, not the cows. Change the Archaea so that it loves the current cow environment but does not produce methane.
Makes more sense than changing the cow and hoping the Archaea does not evolve to like the new cows.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
How about catalytic converters for cows? Stupid enough?
Problem solved. You're welcome.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Realize that a great deal of this sort of 'news' is propaganda from the Anti-Meat nuts. The UN retracted it's report that falsely blamed agriculture for global warming gasses be it is filled with inaccuracies. Other anti-meat propaganda has come tumbling down on closer inspection.
Reality: humans produce more methane than cows, human drilling produces far more methane than cows, human transportation is a far larger culprit than cows, the wild ruminants historically produced more methane than cows and engineering cows isn't going to make a lot of difference but it makes good profits and propaganda.
If you really care about global warming, local and all that then buy from your local pasture based farmers which increases CO2 sequestering and keeps your money in the local economy.
Two problems:
1) It's a regressive food tax that will hit the poorest people harder than anyone
2) The tax will unlikely be used for any environmental endeavor and will most likely be used to increase government spending in other areas
We already know this because gas taxes do exactly the same thing, penalize people for being poor who can't afford the latest automobiles with hybrid or electric drives, and gas taxes get redirected away from infrastructure projects all the time.
Fail.
"Cows emit a LOT of methane, so we need to stop eating them."
(Rationale that it's not that bad, there are bigger sources of methane, etc, etc..)
"Cows emit a LOT of methane, so we need to genetically engineer them."
(Agreement methane from cows is a problem, we can change the cows, which all funnels into something that makes a lot more money, unlike people eating fewer or no cow products.)
.... Don't even know where to start...
Eating meat or animal-based products does not cause harm to the environment... Mass-producing livestock in a factory-environment does. Eating fish does not depopulate the oceans.. Over-fishing does..
I do agree that antibiotics misuse, to make animals grow faster, has grown to become a huge problem. But the current use could be banned and requirements on no detectable antibiotics allowed in meat meant for consumption. (Ie only allow for treatment of animals with infections and make clear rules about how animals are allowed to be grown)
Eating a vegan diet actually causes harm to the environment due to the amount you need to eat to get all the nutrients we need, especially for growing children. If you on the other hand eat a balanced diet where you just reduce the amount of animal products, that cause the most harm, you could reduce your footprint while at the same time getting everything you need in a more environmentally friendly way. Eggs is a great way to get almost everything you need, and you don't need that many either..
One possible source of high-quality protein with a low environmental impact could be insects.. And no, you don't need to go out and catch crickets and eat them raw... They (as in random insects) can be processed into protein powder that you can use as a supplement.
... The fact is that the only reason we keep cows around is that we eat them/use their milk. If we stopped doing that, which again, we don't have to do, cow emissions go away.
Um. Sure. To be replaced by fossil-fuel-driven irrigation, pesticide, and erosion-heavy agriculture alone? And are you going to shoot all of the other methane-producing grazing animals on the planet too, or just cows? How much methane will decomposing deer release in the first few years?
Feed lots are a problem and they produce a lot of methane. Grazing animals, per se, are not the problem. Nor do most grazers produce that much methane on an appropriate forage-heavy diet.
Isn't it bad enough that half the packaging of stuff I buy is full of "no-gmo" "100% organic" "100% real ingredients" "blahblahblah"? Now I need a "Cut from LEB (Low Emission Breed) Cattle"?
Sheesh!
I tend to rant.
Construction Costs:
Nuclear: $14 billion (Vogtle units 3 & 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Solar: $2.2 billion (Ivanpah Solar Power Facility) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wind: $1.5 million (typical 1 megawatt windmill in USA) https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/...
Power produced:
Nuclear: 2 GW (2 units x 1.2 gigawatts each x 0.85 expected capacity factor)
Solar: 80 MW (400 MW capacity x 0.2 measured capacity factor)
Wind: 0.33 MW (1 MW x 0.33 typical measured capacity factor)
Expected Operational Lifespan:
Nuclear: 60 years
Solar: 25 years
Wind: 20 years
CO2 emissions: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Nuclear: 60 g/kWh
Solar: 40 g/kWh
Wind: 21 g/kWh
Someone check my math but this is what I came up with. Wind produces 1/3rd the CO2 of nuclear but costs twice as much. Solar produces 2/3rds the CO2 but costs *TEN TIMES* as much. I'm taking into account installed capacity, operational lifespan, and capacity factor. You can take into account things like cleanup costs after the power plant is retired, lifetime operational costs, etc. Some people just love to point out the extreme costs of building a nuclear power plant but if the actual potential for producing power is taken into account it looks real cheap.
Trying to find actual historical costs of energy of these energy sources has been difficult. Lots of people like to "estimate", "project", or just plain leave things out of their study. A study by what people might assume to be biased pro-nuclear shows electricity costs around the world: https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/p... It shows solar to be quite expensive compared to anything else in the study.
By my estimates wind and nuclear really win out here. Solar might look marginally better than nuclear for reducing CO2 but the costs are just outrageous.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Earths resources are finite, we need to manage our populations or nature will and it won't be pleasant.
Climate science relies too much on statistical models. Climate science degrees need to include advanced engineering thermodynamics subjects.
Can climate scientists explain why Venus with its runaway greenhouse effect has polar atmospheric temperatures much colder than earth? Why isn't the CO2 blanket keeping Venus poles warm? Where's the back radiation?
I think raising environmentalists is unnecessary.
Well, it's more a site for mocking people like that, but I take your meaning. But no, science stories have been a staple of the site for the past ten years; maybe less so in the early days.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Since eating cows is entirely unnecessary, stop raising cows for food and cow emissions will eventually be entirely eliminated as there won't be any reason to keep cows.
We need to all switch to pork.
skip natural gas go directly to electric cattle!
FTFS: "Breeding low-emission cattle would also make it cheaper to raise cattle -- and improve the quality of meat."
What the hell does the cost or quality have to do with how much methane they emit?
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
This Australian study: https://researchonline.jcu.edu... found that adding seaweed to the diet of cattle reduced their methane emissions by up to 99%. That seems a lot simpler and faster than breeding for reduced methane; in any case the special breeds probably wouldn't have 99% reduction. Let's do both.
BACON!
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We need to stop vegatarian and vegan humans. They contribute too much to the methane exhaust of the world.
We had an article pointing out there is a right amount of sea weed they can add to reduce the methane discharge to a minimal level.. what about that one?
... by breeding low-expectation, low-testosterone worker units? In my factories, some of the current models have expressed belief in reduced work hours, increased health benefits, citizen rights and (believe it or not) unionization. My sales contract says that the current iteration (LaborUnits Ltd version 27) is -7 on the Puzder scale for organizational involvement and -12 for cognitive independence. Societal distrust is +22 nominal with +-9 modulation via internet perception. Some units have become real pains-in-the-ass. Almost human. I've had to neutralize over a dozen in the past 2 years. A real waste of training dollars.
Breeding L/E, L/T workers would also make them cheaper to raise -- and improve the quality of the meat once they reached end of useful life.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Will this be a long term solution? Or will the methane-producing bacteria just adapt to the new cattle?
Really hope the whole "genetically modify an animal to help support humanity's rampant lust for it's flesh" thing expands into miniaturizing these big guys, I'd like to net me a job in a slaughterhouse because all those PETA stories about workers secretly stomping on caged chickens or forcefeeding deer has me chomping at the bit to try axe-kicking the every loving shit out of a cow but right now the only two things keeping me from achieving that dream are the fact that, despite the muscle-atrophying cramped living conditions and high weight gain/low nutrient food-like pulp these beasts are fed, I'm still pretty certain a full-size bovine could trample me to death without batting an eyelid and, secondly, Big Slaughter likes to keep outliers like me out of their fold and reserves any and all new openings for their Illuminati free mason buddies but at least tearing apart a cow's genetic makeup to better suit our rampant capitalism-fueled hyper consumerism might help fix my first issue, and before any of you get any clever ideas no, a calf is NOT a "small cow", I can't axe-kick a calf that's just fucked up, it'd be like smashing in the skull of a toddler and that's just not fair, I'm looking to simply engage in hand-to-hand combat with an animal at it's PRIME - after genetic science has ensured it's specie's average prime state is about 80% smaller and weaker than it is now.
With any luck this also means we'll eventually be able to genetically alter the amount of hormones cows produce so I can get my FEMA-approved dose of violence-suppressing estrogen directly from my steak and they can stop spiking the tap water supply with it, but that's just off-in-the-distance crazy wishful thinking.
Less methane means they're utilizing more of the energy from the feed. Less feed = cheaper. Improved meat quality is harder to assess, but might amount to paying more attention to those factors while reducing methane.
I don't read AC A human right
... but wouldn't it be quicker to just put pilot lights on their butts?
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
That was a thought that was rather deep
But now we want some eco-friendly cattle
Can we bio-engineer our favorite chattel?
A high methanogen count will the climate force
Farting our way to global warming remorse
But if we can't electrify our grade-A chow
How now do we get a hybrid cow?
Problem solved. Now we just need someone to install the things.
Breeding low-emission cattle would also make it cheaper to raise cattle -- and improve the quality of meat.
Exactly how does cow flatulence make it more expensive to raise cattle, such that low-emission cows would be "cheaper to raise"?
Exactly how do low-emission cows beef "improve the quality of meat"?
Ken
PBR, hardboiled eggs and garlic for dinner. Cut out the 'middle cow'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
While the methane is an issue, there is plenty of research showing that grazing improves the soil, reduces drought, and is an net reduction to climate change. I can't find it at the moment, but recall seeing experiments done in Africa and Texas...and this wasn't some beef industry propaganda. Now I'm going to have to go find the sources again.
Just another day in Paradise
If only we had a technology that allowed us to directly insert or modify genes in an organism. Some way to engineer the organism's genetics.