Could Cows Actually Help Solve the Climate Crisis? (cnn.com) 113
Cows fertilizing the soil can replenish the land and reduce carbon in the atmosphere, reports CNN -- with a farming practice called "ultra-high density grazing".
Conventional thinking says that cows are bad for climate change. After all, livestock contribute to around 14% of all global emissions. Researchers at UC Davis estimate that a single cow can belch around 220 pounds -- roughly 100 kilograms -- of methane each year. There are more than a billion cows on the planet, so that is a lot of (greenhouse) gas. But cows didn't evolve to sit in feedlots getting fat. Their wild relatives were out in the grassland in large numbers...
Researchers at Texas A&M University led by Professor Richard Teague found that even moderately effective grazing systems put more carbon in the soil than the gasses cattle emit. Around 30% to 40% of the earth's surface is natural grassland, and Teague says the potential for food security is immense... The key to climate-sustainable agriculture is the soil, because soil has an extraordinary ability to store carbon. There is more than three times as much carbon in the world's soils than in the atmosphere, and scientists say that with better management, agricultural soils could absorb much more carbon in the future.
Even a change of a few percentage points would make a huge difference to the battle against the climate crisis. There is an upper limit to how much carbon soils can carry, but it can take decades to get to that point. Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and then put it in the soil through their roots. More carbon is stored in the ground through organic matter and microorganisms.
"We can actually solve the climate crisis by sequestering carbon in the soil and paying farmers to do it," says Art Cullen, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist quoted by CNN.
"And if you say to a farmer that you will pay him a dollar more to plant grass and sit on his butt, then he is going to take that deal every time."
Researchers at Texas A&M University led by Professor Richard Teague found that even moderately effective grazing systems put more carbon in the soil than the gasses cattle emit. Around 30% to 40% of the earth's surface is natural grassland, and Teague says the potential for food security is immense... The key to climate-sustainable agriculture is the soil, because soil has an extraordinary ability to store carbon. There is more than three times as much carbon in the world's soils than in the atmosphere, and scientists say that with better management, agricultural soils could absorb much more carbon in the future.
Even a change of a few percentage points would make a huge difference to the battle against the climate crisis. There is an upper limit to how much carbon soils can carry, but it can take decades to get to that point. Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and then put it in the soil through their roots. More carbon is stored in the ground through organic matter and microorganisms.
"We can actually solve the climate crisis by sequestering carbon in the soil and paying farmers to do it," says Art Cullen, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist quoted by CNN.
"And if you say to a farmer that you will pay him a dollar more to plant grass and sit on his butt, then he is going to take that deal every time."
Apologies (Score:3)
I may be tired or something but do I understand correctly that the basic premise of this article is that cows convert grass to dung and thus eventually soil and as such are sequestering more CO2 than they actually breathe out?
Doesn't this happen anyhow in the normal lifecycle of grass?
Don't get me wrong, I think animal fats and tissue is essential to a healthy human life and I think a vegan diet will lead to longterm damage, reduced productivity and mental capacity, however as much as I like cows.... what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apologies (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Apologies (Score:2)
Why doesn't this already happen on pasture? It's grazed at sufficient density that erosion can't even keep up with phosphate and micronutrient requirements.
Don't really see them rising much.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know where you've seen this in a natural environment, but I've lived near the great plains and also near the largest Tall Grass Prairie preserve in the country. It is populated with some buffalo, but not even close to the densities required for the sort of soil turnover that you're proposing.
As long as the farmers do not fight to preserve a monoculture in the flora it will establish a balanced rotation of plants that bloom grow and die at different rates that does just fine on it's own. Your lawn wi
Re: (Score:2)
There's some dairy farmers here in Oz (and elsewhere, I suspect) that practice a system called "micro-cell grazing". Pastures are divided by temporary fences into small cells. Cattle are moved into a cell, and allowed to graze for a very short period, e.g. 1 hour, before being moved to the next cell.
I believe that the theory involved is to limit grazing so that the various species of the pasture aren't scalped - grazed down to the dirt - and allowed to recover. It helps to maintain diversity and vigour of p
Re:Apologies (Score:5, Insightful)
The other basic problem with this "cows are good!" premise is that we're cutting down huge forests to make room for cows.
Don't get me wrong, I think animal fats and tissue is essential to a healthy human life
Maybe, but not in the quantities that most people are consuming it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people primarily consume low fat muscle meat. At some point, that amount of protein may lead to other issues. I think consuming more parts of the animal would be sensible.
I've started consuming bone marrow, liver and fat for that very reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
According to the article, 30-40% of the world's land is already naturally grassland. Deforestation for the purpose of animal husbandry seems to be a rather backwards way to go about promoting the production of beef.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that it's often the wrong 30-40%. Not suitable for grazing, in the wrong country or owned by the wrong people who want it for some other purpose. A bit of grass land in North America isn't much use to a farmer in South America, or even to consumers down there who can't easily get or afford that imported meat, and of course transport emits CO2 as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There is that. A good deal of arable land has been turned into residential or commercial property. There are some countries where formerly-fertile land has metal poisoning and other forms of pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Apologies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other basic problem with this "cows are good!" premise is that we're cutting down huge forests to make room for cows.
As opposed to cutting down forests to make room for soybeans. Much better.
Re: Apologies (Score:2)
The flaw in their plan is that, in the US, most cows arent fed grass, they're fed corn. The corn lobby would never stand for this
Re: (Score:2)
The liquor lobby will love it, though. Fewer cows eating the corn, more corn available for corn squeezin's....
Re: (Score:3)
The reliance on corn of the average American is a huge problem in and of itself. Diabetes Type 2, Alzheimer's and dementia are on the rise for a reason.
I mean hell, when I was in Canada in 08 and ordered a dessert at McD, I had to throw it away after two spoons. As a European, the amount of fructose in northern American sweets was staggering to the point that my stomach revolted.
Re: (Score:1)
"They love to chew their cud, and they can't chew their cud when they're on corn."
Frontline [pbs.org]
Arguably, then, no longer "clean" food. So there's that argument against it as well as methane production. Or maybe it's ultimately the same argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apologies (Score:1)
The buffaloes made it impossible to have a transcontinental railroad. A herd of buffalo tends to grind a railroad track to dust.
Re: (Score:3)
The flaw in their plan is that, in the US, most cows arent fed grass, they're fed corn. The corn lobby would never stand for this
According to this https://phys.org/news/2019-01-... [phys.org] "if a cow chows down on easily digestible food such as corn, it produces about a third as much methane as a cow that grazes on prairie grasses." and then there's "in order to understand the whole cycle of methane, scientists must take into consideration other forces in the ecosystem. Grasslands such as the U.S. Great Plains, for example, are methane sinks."
I'll just say that life-cycle analysis is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always thought that cows were finished on corn to fatten them up, not fed corn their entire life cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apologies (Score:2)
Yeah, my grandmothers neighbor in east TN and her neighbor has a small herd (maybe 50-75 head?). Is actually a pretty nice feed lot, pretty big with a creek running through it so they get fresh water, and they get hay every day. In my experience in the SE it's always smaller farms like this, but it's not reflective of the majority of the beef in our food supply.
Here we go! (Score:2)
Eggs are good for you
Eggs are bad for you
Coffee is good for you
Coffee is bad for you
Chocolate is good for you
Chocolate is bad for you
etc...
Cows are good for the environment
Cows are bad for the environment.
Seems Science is never settled about anything.
Re: (Score:1)
Some science, I note gravity and quantum dynamics tend not to have life changing flip-flops. One thing to remember is that science in the West is polluted with companies punting their angles as science, or their science with angles. Evolution is settled if we ignore the Evangelicals getting their bloomers in twist over not being especially singled out for different treatment than every other living species. Global warming is also essentially settled if we ignore the people who seem to get all emotional over
Re: (Score:2)
Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?
– Galileo Galilei
Re: (Score:2)
Chocolate comes from the cocoa.
Cocoa comes from a tree, which is a plant.
Therefore, chocolate counts as salad.
Chocolate is good for you.
Re: (Score:1)
That would go for cocaine and heroin too? Whoa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But we have always known that animal fat is bad for you.
Re: (Score:2)
the worse part is the are acting like all green house gasses are the same.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And whether it actually could make cows carbon negative has been disputed by scientists. But you don't necessarily have to make beef carbon negative to make it better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yep, but none of the carbon tax nutters can. I am glad Savory is finally getting more recognition for their efforts. I first heard about them in a TED talk a couple of years ago.
Savory has proof to backup their work and great results to boot. Sadly this cannot be shoehorned into political power so this will not be adopted by the AGW Cult. Any solution that is not wealth redistribution or political power mongering in practice will be shunned.
AGW is a political hoax, regardless of Global Warming itself.
Zero Tillage Farming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does that affect the locust problems in Africa?
Re: (Score:3)
It's linked.
https://www.npr.org/sections/g... [npr.org]
"It turns out that every locust we've studied to date is very carbohydrate hungry and does well and performs well on carbohydrate- or sugary-based diets," Overson says.
That has implications for farmers. The lab also does field research in Senegal, where farmers grow millet.
The lab has published research showing that the farmers who grow their millet sustainably — maintaining healthy soil nutrients — tend to produce a crop that's relatively low in carbohydrates.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Think Buffalo herds. (Score:2)
Of course those buffalo died where they lived.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'll watch Alan Savory's TED talk (link in a comment above), you'll see that having more cattle on less acreage IS the problem.
cow methane not necessarily a problem (Score:3)
The problem lies with the vegans and vegetarians, in their refusal to eat cows, they're clearly not doing their part to reduce our climate issues!
Re: (Score:3)
The methane of the cows is indeed a strong greenhouse gas, but it has a lifetime of about a year. So if the quantity of cows is static, there is no growth of the greenhouse gas problem, the methane of last year just gets replenished by the cows now. If the quantity of cows were to go down, it would temporarily have a positive effect.
The problem lies with the vegans and vegetarians, in their refusal to eat cows, they're clearly not doing their part to reduce our climate issues!
Wikipedia says methane remains in the atmosphere for 12 years, and then it says it has an estimated lifetime of 9.1 years in the atmosphere (I have no idea about the differing numbers) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
His point is still valid, even if his timeline is overly optimistic. The number of cattle in the world is fairly flat and has been for a while, so their methane contribution in the atmosphere should be in a fairly steady state. You could reduce that methane by reducing the cattle herds, but it would be a one-time thing. The methane does convert to CO2, but cows aren't magic alchemical reactors producing carbon, they just put into the atmosphere some (not all) of what they eat. The numbers given for cattle's
Re: (Score:2)
Methane has a half life of seven years in the atmosphere. Natural processes convert it to... CO2.
If you had a methane leak you couldn't stop, it would be advantageous to convert it to CO2 by burning it. That's because it's going to become CO2 eventually, and in the meantime methane is a lot more potent a greenhouse gas.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how impossible it would be to capture this methane and use it to generate power.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how impossible it would be to capture this methane and use it to generate power.
Sounds interesting, but the real question is, will your Bartertown have a Thunderdome, because it would be a lot cooler if you did...
Re: (Score:1)
A charity I supported ran a project for villages without power, but with cows. Since cows tend to "output" at the same time they "input" - they just placed grills underneath where they fed the cows. The only extra task was to mix equal parts (IIRC) dirt + straw in with the dung and it would naturally ferment. This creates natural gas which can be captured and used or lighting + cooking in the evenings.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the natural processes do. The problem is the same as with all highly dispersed energy sources: collection.
they sure can (Score:2)
Sorry, I call Bullshit on this one (Score:1, Funny)
Someone had to do it...
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Econ 101 (Score:2)
Unless he can make 2 dollars by planting something else.
Cow farts are bad ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, livestock contribute to around 14% of all global emissions. Researchers at UC Davis estimate that a single cow can belch around 220 pounds -- roughly 100 kilograms -- of methane each year.
How was this actually determined/studied ? bullshit
Not bullshit, breathalyzers and lasers: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-... [phys.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Also, even a casual
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't believe the lengths researchers go to [wikipedia.org] in order to understand what happens inside of cows.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do you confine cattle? (Score:2)
Shock collars and geofencing?
Re: (Score:2)
In the TFA, the farmer confines his herd of 500 cattle with an electrified fence. It sounds pretty labor intensive.
Re: So how do you confine cattle? (Score:2)
Hence my question. What works for an experiment doesn't really work for huge stretches of rangeland.
I'm also extremely dubious that if you increase the total number of cattle you wouldn't run into phosphate and micronutrients depletion. There's already some evidence mineral erosion can't keep up with the amount of nutrients being extracted on a century timescale. We don't shit where the cattle eat.
Re: (Score:2)
On second thought, I don't think his veld is rangeland at all. It's probably pasture. Fertilized, requiring vastly more water than rangeland and competing with cropland. Which makes the article a bit disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you even confine them? Just let them graze in open prairies.
Re: (Score:2)
Their argument is that rotational grazing increases the amount of organic matter in the soil.
Though despite all the fanboys, I don't see much experiments to prove that for rangeland.
How much more, though? (Score:2)
> Researchers at Texas A&M University led by Professor Richard Teague found that even moderately effective grazing systems put more carbon in the soil than the gasses cattle emit.
Okay, how much more?
A kilogram of methane has the same environmental impact as up to 90 kilograms of CO2, because methane itself is a greenhouse gas, absorbs/traps different wavelengths compared to CO2, and eventually decays into CO2 and water vapor.
So maybe if you just focus on the carbon it works? But what about total envi
Re: How much more, though? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The methane they produce is already part of the normal carbon cycle
Sure. But methane is still 30-90 times worse a greenhouse gas as CO2.
The spread is mostly due to how long a time frame you consider; at 20-30 years it's 90 times worse than the equivalent mass of CO2; at 100+ years it's "only" about 30 times worse. There is also more carbon in a kilogram of methane than a kilogram of CO2...
So depending on what percentage of the carbon in the grass is converted to methane, you might actually be doing les
Re: (Score:2)
When the grassland dies out due to the lack of grazing herds, ALL the carbon above and below the ground surface eventually ends up in the air, and now you have to deal with grassland that has turned into a desert.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But methane is still 30-90 times worse a greenhouse gas as CO2.
The spread is mostly due to how long a time frame you consider; at 20-30 years it's 90 times worse than the equivalent mass of CO2; at 100+ years it's "only" about 30 times worse.
Why stop at 30 years? At 500 years it's 7.6 times as bad as CO2.
There is also more carbon in a kilogram of methane than a kilogram of CO2...
Excellent point. There is 16/44 times as much carbon in CO2 as in CH4 per unit mass, which means that, on a 500 year timescale, the impact per carbon atom of CH4 compared to CO2 is... 7.6 * 16/44. 2.76 times the impact. Given that it is part of the active carbon cycle, being created by turning CO2 into CH4, that makes it 1.76 times as bad as producing CO2 from fossil fuels. On the 500 year scale, taking a return flight from London to the Canary
Climate Crises are for cows. (Score:2)
You are all cows. Save the climate, you cows! MOOOOOOOOOO!
Re: (Score:2)
You are all cows. Save the climate, you cows! MOOOOOOOOOO!
Ahh, you know, of all the AC's that shitposted, Moocow man was the best. No insults, no foul language - I miss that guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. It seemed like the only appropriate thing to do given the topic.
"Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere through (Score:2)
The carbon only goes into the soil when the plant dies and rots.
Re: (Score:2)
News flash, the roots are underground, and about as massive as the part above ground...
Re: "Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere thro (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't sequester carbon right away though
What do you think roots are made of?
Re: "Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere thr (Score:2)
Maybe this is just a translation error of me. To me "putting it into the soil through their roots" meant that the carbon is flowing through their roots into the soil. I see the "through" can also mean that they put it there by means of their roots.
Re: (Score:2)
Grass has a lifespan of, what?, six months?
Secret cow level (Score:3)
Livestock has nothing to do with it. Even as artificial addition, they're just temporary disrupters of the already existing carbon cycle.
The problem remains rapid insertion of gigatons of long-sequestered carbon.
Shit heavier than farts (Score:2)
Propaganda (Score:2)
Probably not (Score:5, Funny)
Where will we put them? (Score:2)
In the US, over 41% of the land is already dedicated to livestock production [bloomberg.com].
Globally, if you put all livestock on one continent, I believe it would entirely fill Africa.
Livestock is already one of the main causes of deforestation, are we going to increase that even more for this nonsense idea?
The only answer is to consume less animal products, we're well beyond 'peak livestock'.
Re: (Score:3)
Globally, if you put all livestock on one continent, I believe it would entirely fill Africa.
Livestock is already one of the main causes of deforestation, are we going to increase that even more for this nonsense idea?
The only answer is to consume less animal products, we're well beyond 'peak livestock'.
That makes no sense, if they are the main cause of deforestation, and could already fill Africa, then consuming less won't help. We need to eat more of them! We must consume them much faster, before they fill the world!
I'm going to get a hamburger right now. Maybe two, to help even more.
Everyone, eat some cow before it's too late!
Everything West of the Misses Hippie (Score:2)
is not dedicated to livestock. Sorry, you fail at basic comprehension. The label is pasture/range but most of that is really desert.
OMG (Score:2)
The guys from alt.cows.moo.moo.moo are again at it.
Why insist on the 14% lie? (Score:2)
Why is the wrong 14.5% value still being repeated? Cattle is responsible for 5% GHG emissions! The 14.5% is a completely irrelevant and distracting "lifecycle" value, that the authors of FAO's study have already explained is not comparable to anything and should not be compared to anything.
You can read the explanation here: https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/fao-common-flawed-comparisons-greenhouse-gas-emissions-livestock-transport/ [cgiar.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the wrong 14.5% value still being repeated?
Because it makes livestock look worse than it is. And constant repetition is how you propagate lies (I won't risk running afoul of Godwin here).
Environmental damage (Score:1)
Cost? (Score:2)
I read the article a few days ago, and it seemed interesting. I have had open-air, all grass-fed beef and it tastes amazing. But, this method probably costs quite a bit more. Eco-friendly or not, I wonder if there is enough demand to cover the extra cost?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's pretty much millennial idiot thinking, there are a lot of ethical famers. If you want to call out corporations, fine, but as with so many other things, this is not the out of control train so many young people have convinced themselves it is (it must be terrible to live in fear of your mind's own fabrications) particularly on the west coast. Trade your Netflix documentaries and Washington Post for some real life experience sometime.
You might be marked as -1 for the gratuitous insults, but our local independent farmers will shock a lot of people with just how intelligent, smart, and technically savvy they are. And yes, ethical. So you aren't wrong.
Right after High school, I worked with/for some independents, and it only takes a day to lose that "Hayseed Harold" stereotype.