Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can We Reduce Cow Methane Emissions By Breeding Low-Emission Cattle? (popsci.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the how-now-low-methane-emission-cow dept.

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.

28 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Be at peace instead by Kohath · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you’re not a religious environmentalist, your cows' methane emissions are not a sin.

  2. it's what's for dinner by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    U.S. beef production, in fact, roughly equals the annual emissions of 24 million cars

    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.
    1. Re: it's what's for dinner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should tackle the worst offenders first.

      No, we should not. There is no rational reason to sequentially solve independent problems. There is no reason that dealing with methane emissions from cattle should be delayed until we are "done" with transportation. That is idiotic.

    2. Re: it's what's for dinner by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is the electricity for these electric cars generated? From coal. From oil.

      A power plant can burn oil in a more efficient way, with processes that make the exhaust drastically cleaner than anything a car can do. Obviously, you still want to get rid of oil, but in the meantime we want to burn it cleanly. And coal, well, needs to die immediately.

      From nuclear.

      Nuclear is so much safer and less polluting than any alternative, including those holiest-of-holy "renewables" that I'd call what so-called environmentalists do outright sabotage. Hydro shuts down variations in water level that are vital to many ecosystems, and is devastating when there's a dam failure. Wind kills millions of birds and bats, and produces noise that affects humans and wildlife in a large radius. Solar is only now becoming possible without downsides, and it produces unreliable power.

      On the other hand, even 60s era nuclear is orders of magnitude safer than all of the above, and its byproducts come in small nice easy-to-store barrels. Modern nuclear has no real risk of a run-away reaction.

      And if we'd care the slightest about environment (rather than just political gains from claiming we do), we'd research fusion a long time ago already.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re: it's what's for dinner by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      How is the electricity for these electric cars generated? From coal. From oil. From natural gas.

      It's a two-step process. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you need to replace cars, and you need to replace power plants. Replacing either of them by itself will still cut emissions, though.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: it's what's for dinner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The investment needed to supply sufficient electricity for vehicles would be enormous.

      We already have sufficient generating capacity. The capacity is designed for peak demand, but cars can recharge anytime, and there is plenty of power capacity available non-peak. My wife has an electric car, and it is pre-programmed to start charging at 2am. In the future, cars can be designed to query the grid, and only draw power when excess is available. This flexible demand can mesh very well with intermittent power sources such as solar and wind.

    5. Re:it's what's for dinner by swillden · · Score: 2

      Changing the American diet likely is the easier and faster option

      Bwahahaha! /me wipes tear from eye.

      Thanks! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!

      with the price of beef being what it is... that's coming anyways

      No, high beef prices won't change the American diet. And in any case, they're not going to stay high.

      Beef hit an all time high last year, but has been declining, and will continue to decline because the high prices of the last few years have motivated a lot of investment. What pushed prices up was primarily Chinese demand for beef, not that much beef is shipped to China, but a tremendous amount of feed has been going there (which seems insane, but there's lots of space on China-bound cargo ships, so it's actually quite economical). Chinese demand is not declining, but high prices are motivating more and more farmers to remove land from the Conservation Reclamation Program (CRP, the federal program that pays farmers to leave farmland fallow) and put it into production.

      By way of example, my brother-in-law has several hundred acres in southern Idaho which he had in CRP and also used as a bird hunting preserve. But the rising prices motivated him a couple of years ago to take it out of CRP and put it into alfalfa production. His production isn't fully ramped up, though. The first year he was essentially dry farming while he dug a well, ran power to it and put irrigation infrastructure in. This year he irrigated, but still hasn't got all of the irrigation infrastructure he needs, and he also needs bigger tractors and other equipment to get maximum production. Next year he should really hit his stride. The recent high prices have allowed him to make all of this investment while still turning a small profit, and he estimates that his land will continue to be profitable until prices fall to about a third of what they are now.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re: it's what's for dinner by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      What's your solution?

      Crickets. Not 'crickets' as in there's no alternative, but crickets as in actual crickets. They can be ranched with almost no water and a much better feed-to-meat ratio than the nine-to one from cattle.

    7. Re: it's what's for dinner by doctorvo · · Score: 2

      We should tackle the worst offenders first. A global shift to zero emission transportation would be a game changer.

      Except, of course, that transportation isn't "the worst offender"; globally it's about 14% of total GHG emissions, and only a fraction of that can reasonably be switched to "zero emission". The "worst offenders" are industry, heating, electricity, and agriculture.

    8. Re: it's what's for dinner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you for nicely demonstrating the level of debate that has become commonplace when discussing nuclear power: all hysterical emotion, no facts or logic.

    9. Re: it's what's for dinner by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Citation needed.

      Nuclear is the safest energy source we currently have. My citation: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re: it's what's for dinner by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The usual heuristic is "low hanging fruit". You start with easy stuff and work your way up.

      However the usual heuristic goes out the window when people feel there's a crisis. For example war: you don't ignore easy targets, but you don't confine yourself to them. You're much more focused on maximum value targets.

      Neither of these heuristics is wrong, they're just for different situations.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re: it's what's for dinner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You start with easy stuff and work your way up.

      What is easy for a biologist is not the same as what is easy for an electrochemist. How about we let the biologists work on the cow farts, while the electrochemists work on better batteries?

    12. Re: it's what's for dinner by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Okay, start with the low hanging fruit and work your way up. So, tell me which is easier. First option is to engineer, breed, or whatever cattle and their gut biome to produce less methane. Second option is to realize that this is all bullshit since that methane is from plant matter that the cattle ate and is already part of the carbon cycle. If the cattle didn't eat the plants then it would rot in a field, get eaten by wild ruminant megafauna, or otherwise get turned to methane anyway.

      I suppose we could short circuit this methane production by killing off all the ruminant fauna, and the grass, and just spray the countryside with Agent Orange.

      You want some low hanging fruit to pick on reducing carbon output from digging up coal? Build nuclear power plants. Lots of nuclear power plants. Shut down the coal industry in a way that doesn't involve killing the economy. Make nuclear power so cheap that no one would even think of burning coal. Get the government to start issuing nuclear reactor permits. We know how to build them, and there's people standing in line to do so.

      I know someone is just gearing up to reply on how putting nuclear power in the hands of greedy capitalists will mean another meltdown and the entire country becoming as inhabitable as if hosed down with Agent Orange. Here's why I know some greedy capitalist won't let another meltdown happen, they have to live on this planet too. You might have a handful of suicidal psychotics that think playing the fiddle while Rome burns is a good idea but there will be hundreds, or thousands, of people that will want to make sure that any given nuclear reactor is safe. Comparing modern nuclear power to Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island, is like saying we can't have any new cars because the Pinto, Corvair, and Bronco II were all unsafe vehicles.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    13. Re: it's what's for dinner by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      otherwise get turned to methane anyway.

      No. This is wrong. If it decays or is eaten by most other animals, it will be converted to CO2, not CH4.

  3. Easy - fit them with a Cattle-Itic converter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mooooooo!

  4. Re: Why TF is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is news for nerds, stuff that matters... why are *you* on Slashdot? Fox News might satisfy more your limited interests!

  5. Raise more deer by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Raise more deer by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was just reading yesterday on how Staten Island has a deer problem so they are culling the deer. Now usually one would think this means trapping or shooting the deer but no, that would make sense. What the New York City government is doing is giving the bucks they catch a vasectomy.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

      Not even a castration, which would not only be easier but also avoid the rut behavior that puts them at risk of automobile collisions as they travel around the island. They are giving the bucks a vasectomy.

      Don't deer fart too? What of their methane production? Not only that but the reason they want to get rid of the deer on the island is that they are effectively an invasive species spreading disease, causing property damage, and putting people's lives at risk from automobile collisions.

      The inmates are running the asylum in New York City. Those deer should be hunted for their tasty meat and to remove the risks to life and property they cause. But no one wants to vote to kill Bambi, so they spend millions of taxpayer dollars to catch the deer, give them a vasectomy, and then... let them go. That way the deer can die naturally, by getting hit by a truck.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Raise more deer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Castrating them (since you won't get all the male deer) wouldn't actually much reduce the rate of deer breeding precisely because the castrated males won't rut. Thus the few with intact parts would simply mate with more hinds. If they are castrated then it is entirely possible for the dominant buck to be one firing blanks, with pretty much none of the hinds getting pregnant (some hinds are naughty).

  6. Re:Easier by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Never heard of milk?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. problem is the feed... by sxpert · · Score: 2

    feed them proper grass and neither corn nor soy beans... problem solved

    1. Re:problem is the feed... by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 2

      Given that about half the arable land in the US is already devoted to livestock and the crops that feed them, and that corn and soy pack a LOT more calories than grass, how much more land are you willing to give up to grow grass to feed livestock? (And what will the damage of that be? Even more forests cut down to grow grass for cows?) I think this war is lost, and people just need to eat less (or no) animal products.

  8. The underlying problem... by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  9. Breed the BACTERIA by gurps_npc · · Score: 2

    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
  10. Watch out for Anti-Meat Propaganda by pubwvj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Watch out for Anti-Meat Propaganda by pakar · · Score: 2

      Reducing emissions of any kind is a good thing... How to implement it in a good way is a different story..

      Stop feeding cows corn and soy-based feed to start with and that will reduce their emissions a crap-load. (yea, i had to go there :)

      Providing economic incentives for companies that produce goods at lower emission-levels will result in lower emissions and will start a race to produce the most amount of goods with the smallest environmental impact. How to do this on a global market can definitely be tricky, but should be doable with import-taxes or other emission-requirements for imported goods.

  11. Feed cattle some seaweed for 99% less methane by anadem · · Score: 2

    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.