Grass Fed Beef Causing Global Warming: Is it All a Bunch of (Pardon the Pun) Bull?

Last year's headline: (4.00 / 3)

The International Federation of Agricultural Producers has asked for a "special deal" in climate negotiations, insisting there are "limits to what farmers could do to curb emissions" from the flatulent, burping cattle which contribute a fair whack of the 20 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions attributed to agricultural activities.

I have my copy of the New Scientist at work but from memeory it says that cattle do contribute quite a bit to global warming. I'll post the article tomorrow.

Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!

---

by: Asinus Asinum Fricat @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:41:03 PM UTC

Add this to the equation, (4.00 / 5)

The Harvard prof says that a Google search, meanwhile, uses energy equivalent to 7g of CO2 emissions. His research isn't yet published, so we'll just have to take that on trust - though Google dispute it vigorously.

So actually it isn't two Googles = one kettle boil, even by Wissner-Gross' own figures. It's at least seven, more likely eight+ Googles before you've caused the same carbon emissions as you would boiling a kettle.

Crikey, though - that's a lot of greenhouse gas, isn't it? Maybe we shouldn't use computers and IT so much. Or anyway, if we do, we should give Wissner-Gross some guilt money to green up our websites using his co2stats.com magic.

Or, more usefully, we could simply take to lighting our farts.

No, really. Farting and failing to burn off the resulting methane is incredibly environmentally irresponsible. The average person emits anywhere from half a litre to three litres of evil-smelling gas daily. Some of this is CO2, but we shouldn't blame ourselves there - the food we eat absorbs atmospheric carbon as it grows, we are effectively biofuelled and we can ignore that.

But, thanks to our intestinal bacteria, many of us also emit carbon in the form of methane, which is a vastly more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 - 25 times as bad for the planet, in fact. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "up to ten per cent" of human intestinal gas is methane. Assuming five per cent, and a middle-of the-road 2l of daily bottomnal emissions, we are each putting out a cool (well, warm) 0.07 grams of CH4 every day. That has the same planet-busting effect as emitting about 2g of CO2, and it's not compensated for by our biofuelled food chain.

from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/s...

Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!

---

by: Asinus Asinum Fricat @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:45:32 PM UTC

lol; you beat me to it (3.75 / 4)

Next: Monsanto announces Flatulence-Ready Human Chow!

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:53:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the IT industry just needs to clean up (4.00 / 4)

Google is doing a good job with solar energy and making itself more efficient, but the IT industry needs to focus a bit more on that.

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:55:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

smells of sophistry to me (4.00 / 5)

It's certainly possible cattle affect the atmosphere, considering how many of them there are. It may even be a graven in stone fact. But jumping from there to the assumption that we should raise cattle in a manner that affects their biology for our convenience doesn't work for me. It's clear that feedlot raised cattle are unhealthy. I won't buy into the idea that we just throw drugs and GM food and whatever at the cattle to counter what we do to them, and what we're doing to the atmosphere by raising far too many of them. There are too many cattle because there are too many humans eating too much meat, period.

This debate about range-fed cattle being more problematic than feedlot cattle also surely ignores the fact that proper range management does not involve overgrazing, and that a magnitude or three fewer cattle, raised in a healthy manner, are unquestionably going to be a better thing for the environment generally, and human and bovine health in many ways. Once you accept lowering the standard of life for the cattle as a prerequisite for managing an unsustainable number of them, beware. You then also open the door to accepting lowering the standard of life for humans, for exactly the same reasons.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:51:44 PM UTC

I agree (4.00 / 3)

plus I don't know if they include the gas emissions associated with growing, harvesting, and transporting the feedlot cattle's food or not.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 00:24:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

exactly (4.00 / 3)

that's one of the key points here; if they are just measuring some cohort of range-fed cattle against some cohort of feedlot cattle, as to their gas emissions, without comparing the carbon footprint of everything else involved in raising the cattle - and doing it in an unbiased manner - then it's just more advertising for the beef council.

However, I still think the entire discussion is a red herring. Large herbivores grazing on rangeland were around long before the beef council was, and were an important part of the ecology. What is happening with cattle is a mad distortion of that, so all this hemming and hawing about cattle flatulence is just that...a bunch of gas.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 00:37:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

GOOD CALL (4.00 / 3)

one look at Allen Savory's Holistic Management will tell you that. Any brittle environment needs its large grazing animals to give it the necessary grazing and animal impact to keep it from turning into desert.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 00:40:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yep (4.00 / 3)

that's why we should have some kind of large herbivores in the desert, small numbers. Though I expect the bison did a better job of it, being better adapted and all. Be nice to see them come back to Texas, once the locals are done with the fossil fuels and the Ogallala aquifer.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 00:44:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seems like it depends (4.00 / 4)

on the quality of the pasture.  If you've got a "biodynamic" situation like Polyface Farms ( http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ ), for instance, then it's probably much better for the environment than grain-fed cows.  They have a forest preserved there that helps the farm, the roots of the grass grow very strong and prevent soil erosion and therefore store a lot of carbon, and the grass is not fertilized or worn down at all.  But if you've got a pasture like that situation described by Science, then it might be worse.

Like you said, Jill, it's not worth giving up on grass-fed because of a single study.

Overall, it seems like eating less beef is the best thing to do.

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 22:54:10 PM UTC

agreed (4.00 / 4)

The article made a very good point about WHY cows are so bad compared to other animals. It's because they have so few offspring. A mama pig can have 8 babies a year, and chickens and fish can have even more! But a cow has only 1.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 00:25:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eating less beef is the only thing to do. That much is clear. (4.00 / 5)

Look at the cattle situation in China. Much less, because the Chinese do not eat the way we do ie steak, carbs & vegs or a Mac Donald dinner. Meat is not center stage in an average Chinese family lunch or dinner but a side dish, an accompaniment to noodles, rice or vegetables. It's only recently that they have "discovered" fast food and obesity is unfortunately on the rise there as well.  

Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!

---

by: Asinus Asinum Fricat @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 00:36:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Historically that is true. But... (4.00 / 5)

as the average Chinese wage and income goes up, they are eating more and more meat.  Around the world, developing nations are trying to adopt Western (U.S.) lifestyles, including eating lots of meat.  And that means importing a lot of grain from other countries, thus using a lot of fossil fuel and implicitly importing water as well from abroad (in the form of the grain).

Not good trends...  

---

by: DennisP @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 15:21:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no, not good trends at all (4.00 / 3)

Meat has prestige in Chinese culture. It's a mark of wealth and generosity when you buy meat dishes for others (less prestigious is veggies, and worst of all is rice). Perhaps fortunately, the most common meat in China is pork. But their beef consumption is going up as their meat consumption goes up of course.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 18:20:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

pigs are intelligent (4.00 / 3)

and horribly farmed.  

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 20:21:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm thinking of giving up pork (4.00 / 3)

I really don't eat it much anyway (if I had to guess I'd say 2 pounds a year, but even that might be more than what I actually eat) and I always feel bad when I do because pigs are so smart.  Even when I get it from the farm down the road from me, I feel terribly.  In this case for me, it's not a matter of sustainability, but morality.

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 20:39:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there's something to be said (4.00 / 3)

for not being in the habit of eating the flesh of an animal you couldn't bring yourself to kill personally.

A friend of mine once put it this way: "I think I could kill a chicken if I had to. But I'm not sure I could kill a pig. Not if it was looking at me."

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 22:54:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've thought about that (4.00 / 3)

About only eating animals I would personally kill.  That would leave small insects and maybe fish for me.  I could eat eggs, too.

So I'm trying to ease into it, I guess.

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 03:20:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

*I /could/ personally kill n/t (4.00 / 2)

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 03:21:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

in Animal, Vegetable, Miracle (4.00 / 3)

Kingsolver points out that most of our "civilized" sensibilities about killing have to do with accidentally killing plants or animals, or murderous impulses, or in any case killing that isn't about food, and she argues that killing animals for food is in a separate category, and you adapt to it, and that this is healthy as long as the animals have a good life.

It's an interesting subject in that there is so much in it that is subjective, this business of what and whom it is allowable to kill, and indeed what qualifies as a "who" and what doesn't, etc.

I worked for ten years with a non-profit educational organization that was all about educating people about arachnids. As a result, there's lots of critters in that department I'm not all that happy about killing either. I used to fish with my father when I was a kid and it didn't bother me, but I don't think I'd find actually catching any fish fun, now. It would seem mean, though not as mean as killing a pig or a dog for food.

There's a lot to be said for eating insects. You know where they've been, it's an extremely ecologically sound practice, and some of our closest relatives (other primates) eat insect larvae, especially. I can't do it, myself, I'm too conditioned against it. But entomophagy is popular in lots of parts of the world and there are lots of recipes out there for fried grasshoppers & mealworms & stuff like that.


"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 03:50:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're enjoying the book, aren't you? (4.00 / 3)

:)

Making me want to reread it soon!

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 03:58:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's interesting and inspiring (4.00 / 3)

but in some ways it's making me very sad, because it's so about community and I don't have that kind of community going at all.

But, working harder on growing food is surely a start...or at least it should be.


"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:02:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i had the same reaction (4.00 / 3)

i have a small back yard which is mostly paved and mostly covered, and after reading that book i longed for some earth to till.

I finally created some giant containers and grew some amazing peppers, tomatoes and squash.  Right now they're filled with lettuces, brussels sprouts, chard, beets and carrots.  

Community is hard to create.  I think that's why the blogosphere is so popular.  

---

by: chicklet @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:23:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

with our current paradigm (4.00 / 2)

it's hard to create. The current paradigm is fairly anti-stranger and definitely not about community cooking or farming!

Far as container gardening goes; you can do quite a bit with a plastic 55 gallon drum cut in half. Especially one that was going to be thrown away anyway.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 15:46:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I bought a bunch of (4.00 / 1)

those big rubbermaid things, drilled out some holes in the bottom and filled them with a bunch of dirt that we had in the garage, along with a goodly amount of compost.  I have to say, it was a joyful thing to tend the garden all summer long, even though at times it was a pain.  

this year i'm starting a lot of stuff from seed, so we'll see how that goes.  We're in the midst of looking for a new house to live in - it must have a yard and be BART convenient and in our price range.  I'm thinking we'll be looking for a while.  :)

---

by: chicklet @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:37:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

rubbermaid totes are useful for all sorts of things (0.00 / 0)

I haven't ever used them as planters, but that's a good idea too. I figure if you're gonna use plastic, use it for long-term purposes, and get good quality, and Rubbermaid hangs in there quite well.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:06:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

well, they're not bad (4.00 / 4)

they're just a bad food idea for a species with such large numbers.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 00:38:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can haz Dexters? (4.00 / 3)

Thanks; I'll keep an eye on this discussion. DH has been making noises about getting a pair of Dexter cows within the next few years. They'd be -- yep -- munching out in the pasture.

---

by: monkeybiz @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:25:23 AM UTC

Trampled grass?! (4.00 / 3)

Hmmm, I don't recall the cows that grazed the hills behind our house causing an issue with trampled grass. Sure, there would be "foot paths" along the sides of the hills where they traveled almost single file, but we liked those! That grass has been growing forever. Turns brown every summer and comes up a foot or two high every spring depending on rain etc. The bigger threat to the land was housing developers! And the cows happily shared the land with the wild turkeys, deer, possum, and other critters. And then there are the old oaks and wild flowers . . .  Dunno, have a hard time seeing a factory farm/feedlot being better . . .  

And wouldn't a cow eating it's natural diet have less stomach upset than one being forced to eat whatever waste we throw at them including melamine tainted feed? I seriously don't recall the cattle on the hills being stinky. We used to sit in the trees while the cattle grazed below us.

I think I'll stick with the Momma Nature plan for now. She seems like a pretty smart lady  ;)

---

by: nycstray @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:02:05 AM UTC

Just for fun . . . . (4.00 / 3)

I'd like to see them do a comparison of this ranch 'group' to a factory farm/feed lot and then get back to me :)

https://www.8oclockranch.com/i...

---

by: nycstray @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:22:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

agreed (4.00 / 1)

that trampled grass line was pretty BS, I thought. Trampled grass as global warming threat, oh noes! Not that humans ever do anything to the earth that remotely resembles trampling grass. Rainforests? What rainforests?

The argument seemed to assume the rangeland or pastureland would be overgrazed. You can move your cattle around from pasture to pasture to prevent this, too.

I wouldn't put it past the beef industry to come up with some sort of complex, artificial, toxic method to reduce cattle flatulence, and then claim they'd improved on dreadful dirty smelly ol' nature.

Then they will send all their lackeys after us, pounding on our heads pointing out that we are all very foolish and not very smart and definitely not scientists and could not possibly understand the virtues of all this fine scientific progress....sigh.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:27:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I had to read it a couple of times, lol!~ (4.00 / 2)

Lordy, methinks they're reaching just a tad. I don't even know who's cows those were on the hills, but I can say I never saw anyone out there maintaining the lands and nursing the poor trampled grass back to health. It's been about 30yrs since I sat in those trees, but my parents still live there and the grass is still growing and the wild turkeys are still cruising the hills. I guess the theory could play out if you took a factory farm's worth of cattle and put them in too small a space . . . but then you no longer have "free range" pastured grass fed beef. You have confined cattle eating trampled grass that would prob need to be supplemented with some waste material feed. Hmmm, sound familiar . . . ?

They can talk until they're blue in the face, somethings just don't pan out no matter how much they would like it to. I heard this theory a couple yrs back and the fact that the cattle produce waste and it goes into streams and such, is a problem. But, when you look at the ranches that go the pastured route, you can quickly see that land stewardship is high on the list. They are not going to pollute the water sources or let the land become overrun to the point it's worthless for the cattle (trampled makes it sound like the grass is dead), it defies the whole thought process and purpose of raising the cattle (and other livestock) this way. The dots just don't connect.

For now (and until they can come up with something a heck of a lot more believable to me!), I'll stick to buying my meats and poultry from the ranchers in my state who respect both the animals and land.  

---

by: nycstray @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:08:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yep, well put. (4.00 / 1)

Until recently, I wasn't absolutely positive what "sophistry" even meant, and then I started reading this kind of crap and thought; "That's sophistry, isn't it?" Arguments that look real on the face of them but are based on cherry-picked information, more or less. Starting with the desired answer and working backwards from there.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:44:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Heh... (4.00 / 2)

Then they will send all their lackeys after us, pounding on our heads pointing out that we are all very foolish and not very smart and definitely not scientists and could not possibly understand the virtues of all this fine scientific progress....sigh.

Ain't that the truth!

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:09:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

seriously (4.00 / 2)

What I recall from the Holistic Management book is that "animal impact" i.e. trampled grass, manure, etc is a good thing in every sort of way. When you utilize rotational grazing, the cows provide a helpful and much-needed effect on the environment. It's not a bad thing.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 18:21:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well, yeah (4.00 / 2)

if grass couldn't handle being walked on, it wouldn't have evolved under large herbivores.

"Trampling" in this context is a loaded word. If the author had said the grass or the environment suffered from cows walking on grass, people would go WTF? "Trampling" sounds like stampedes.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 20:24:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As with all things, common sense should play a part... (4.00 / 3)

I have a hard time with this theory too- for many reasons. While I do agree that we are probably raising too many cattle proportionally for the planet(and therein lies the main problem), I do not buy that feedlot cattle could be better on any level. Cows are built to eat grass and we have never (despite our human egos to think so)been able to improve on Mother Nature or her design.  Besides, feedlots invite over-crowded conditions.  Properly range raised animals aren't likely to be so as it is a contradiction to the philosophy of sustainable farming (therefore I also agree with those pointing out that properly managed sustainable grasslands aren't likely to yield the same issues as those that aren't).  

Lastly, it brings up the obvious question of who funded the study that resulted in this announcement. While this was a Mark Bittman story, he appeared to only be relaying what the Science article reported w/no comment of his own. I have looked around a bit but have not been able to find any trail of the actual origin of the study.  Anyone know?

---

by: K Lamont @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 15:58:17 PM UTC

I couldn't find the actual study (4.00 / 1)

although I admit I did not look that hard.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 18:03:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sounds suspect (4.00 / 2)

and not just 'cuz I love cow.  :)

I live just outside of the bay area and we have a lot of "happy cows" grazing between us and the closest bart station.  I haven't seen any issues with "trampled grass."  In fact, their grazing land is some of the prettiest scenery that I've seen, supporting gorgeous greenery until mid-summer, when the land dries out and it all turns gold.

besides that, it simply makes no sense that something so natural as grazing cows on big expanses of land would somehow create a worse environmental situation than feedlots.  I've seen plenty of feedlots, and the idea that something that lives most of its life standing in its own poop is somehow better for the world than something living as nature intended seems just screwy.

---

by: chicklet @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:19:09 AM UTC

The hills I mention above (4.00 / 2)

are Bay Area hills. Here in the east, there's also beautiful scenery with happy cows grazing. I'd really like to know who they think they are going to convince with this "trampled grass theory", lol!~ And if they want to go the "emissions" route . . . .  

---

by: nycstray @ Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 00:43:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The cows next door (4.00 / 3)

Live on some of the nicest grass in California. I've never seen them bring in fertilizer. They do rotational grazing between about 10 parcels, some of which are adjacent, and some are elsewhere in the valley. The cows are herded up the road when they go to other places, not driven in a truck.

Water is used, but this is water from our watershed, and it is gravity fed, not pumped. Water that goes into the soil either goes back into the air where it was produced, or into the soil where it helps maintain the river.

The pasture is shared with foxes, deer, hawks, great blue herons, and the occasional egret.

If the cows were not on these lands, they would have to be mowed by tractors, or some other herbivores would have to be brought in. Some of the land is valley bottom, and some includes steep hillsides.

Yes, cows are large, but this isn't entirely a disadvantage. Cows can be run with minimal supervision among all kinds of wildlife. Goats may be tough but they can be taken out by a dog. Chickens similarly need much more protection from predation.

Some ranchers have worked out arrangements with smaller property owners, people who purchase 5 acre estates, but who don't have the time or inclination to run animals on their grass. A couple of cows for a few weeks twice a year replaces a mowing bill, a net positive for the rancher, the landowner, and the environment.

Again, you have to say, "compared to what?" A monoculture vegetable farm in the central valley, using large tractors, pumped water, and whatever other inputs they use not only has an impact, but is less aesthetically pleasing and less friendly to wildlife than a well managed cattle range. We need both.

Heaven help us when the Republicans start figuring out the methane emissions of each endangered species.

As it was, he did a deal with a blancmange, and the blancmange ate his wife.

---

by: elfling @ Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 16:55:38 PM UTC