PDA

View Full Version : Progress! Gassy cows to produce less gas



PraedSt
2009-May-07, 10:32 PM
Finally, good news on the Global warming/flatulence front.

Researchers find way to reduce cattle methane (http://www.physorg.com/news160927285.html)


Beef farmers can breath easier thanks to University of Alberta researchers who have developed a formula to reduce methane gas in cattle.

By developing equations that balance starch, sugar, cellulose, ash, fat and other elements of feed, a Canada-wide team of scientists has given beef producers the tools to lessen the methane (http://www.physorg.com/tags/methane/) gas their cattle produce by as much as 25 per cent.

Phew!

Ara Pacis
2009-May-07, 11:33 PM
Finally, good news on the Global warming/flatulence front.

Researchers find way to reduce cattle methane (http://www.physorg.com/news160927285.html)



Phew!

I'm still wondering why we don't just do to all cows like we do with dairy cows: attach something to suck out the useful product. I know, they're out in the fields away from buildings etc. Okay, maybe we need something you can strap to their backs and plug into the cow's bottom. A small compressor, if needed, can be solar powered with large wings drapping over or projecting to the side from the tops of the animals. Yes, I can see it now, "Winged Cyborg Bovine Save World". Or maybe we should call them "Cyborvine".

mugaliens
2009-May-08, 06:14 AM
Personally, I don't think they produce enough methane....

But that's just me.

HenrikOlsen
2009-May-09, 12:03 AM
I've read somewhere else that people are also trying to have cows use the intestinal bacteria of kangaroos, which produce acetic acid instead of methane.

Ara Pacis
2009-May-09, 12:30 AM
I have white vinegar, red wine vinegar and apple cider vinegar... Am I to believe we will soon have cowpie vinegar? :-/

mike alexander
2009-May-10, 02:27 AM
The mental image of large herds of cows wandering about with wazoo tubes hooked to a compressor on their backs is among the funniest things crossing my mental screen in months. Then my subconscious added solar panels to run the compressors and it got even better.

PraedSt
2009-May-10, 03:07 AM
Hmm. Tinker a bit more and we get- jetpacks!

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/830/jetpackcow1222214194.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jetpackcow1222214194.jpg)

Paracelsus
2009-May-10, 12:36 PM
Eating less beef and fewer dairy products would produce less gas too and would use up fewer natural resources. I don't see the point of this 'innovation'.

NEOWatcher
2009-May-11, 05:01 PM
The mental image of large herds of cows wandering about with wazoo tubes hooked to a compressor on their backs is among the funniest things crossing my mental screen in months.
Not to take away from Praedst's picture of the Delorean Moo Cow from the movie "back to the pasture" but; here's a real image (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/new-research-into-livestock-methane-emissions-20090225-8hik.html).

Salty
2009-May-11, 06:15 PM
Good grief. I never paid attention to cattle gas emissions. I wonder if there's a an obsessive/compulsive element to some of this research?

We need more trees and other greenery, to balance out natural methane sources, in my opinion.

Ronald Brak
2009-May-11, 11:48 PM
Eating less beef and fewer dairy products would produce less gas too and would use up fewer natural resources. I don't see the point of this 'innovation'.

Often people don't like change, including dietry changes. Many people find it hard to change their diets even when their lives hang in the balance. So reducing the amount of methane released by reduces the destructiveness of an industry that people are unlikely to get rid of for a long time.

One thing we could do is use pigs, chickens or other non ruminants to produce beef. This is a little tricky but it's not impossible to genetically engineer an animal so it's mucles are more beef like. Not sure how far this could be practically taken. Another option would be to grow beef but not use a ruminant digestive system. For example beef muscle could be cultured using nutrient solutions.

Ronald Brak
2009-May-11, 11:58 PM
Good grief. I never paid attention to cattle gas emissions. I wonder if there's a an obsessive/compulsive element to some of this research?

Australia's largest anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are from it's sheep and cattle industries. (Yes, I know. Describing something comes out of a cow as anthropogenic sounds funny.)

Ronald Brak
2009-May-12, 12:01 AM
One thing that could be done is for to pass the air from feedlot ventilation systems through baffles that act as a catalyst for the breakdown of methane. Just how practical or expensive this option is, I don't know.

Salty
2009-May-12, 12:25 AM
Australia's largest anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are from it's sheep and cattle industries. (Yes, I know. Describing something comes out of a cow as anthropogenic sounds funny.)

I was considering the entire planet. In the back of my mind were the Siberian tundra, holding millions of tons of methane, thawing out. Also there are methane layers at the bottom of our oceans, which a change in currents could bring to the surface, to be evaporated into the air. We can do little about those resevoirs of methane, and I'll grant, it seems the cattle emissions are controlable.

I'd say we'd be better off to find a way to refine methane from out of our atmosphere,. than to fret about f--ts.

I still think the greater danger is the diminishing forests and other plants, which produce the oxygen in our atmosphere.

PraedSt
2009-May-12, 12:44 AM
I still think the greater danger is the diminishing forests and other plants, which produce the oxygen in our atmosphere.
:think: Hm. What if we genetically modify the cattle gut bacteria to produce oxygen instead of methane?

closetgeek
2009-May-12, 04:54 PM
I was considering the entire planet. In the back of my mind were the Siberian tundra, holding millions of tons of methane, thawing out. Also there are methane layers at the bottom of our oceans, which a change in currents could bring to the surface, to be evaporated into the air. We can do little about those resevoirs of methane, and I'll grant, it seems the cattle emissions are controlable.

I'd say we'd be better off to find a way to refine methane from out of our atmosphere,. than to fret about f--ts.

I still think the greater danger is the diminishing forests and other plants, which produce the oxygen in our atmosphere.

I remember learning, in mysteries of science, that cattle produce about ten percent of the total methane being released into the atmosphere. Correct me if I am wrong, though, I am trying to sort through about 16yrs of memory, but if that's even close to accurate...

Salty
2009-May-12, 05:07 PM
:think: Hm. What if we genetically modify the cattle gut bacteria to produce oxygen instead of methane?

This reply is from my ignorance of many details; but I think that it would be cheaper, safer and quicker to develop refining plants which could take methane from our atmosphere. I'm considering unknown consequences to genetically modify the cattle's digestive tracts. And, finding the type of bacteria to produce oxygen while determining which present bacteria produce methane would take time and expensive R&D. In my opinion.

eric_marsh
2009-May-12, 05:24 PM
Aren't cows carbon neutral? The grass consumes co2, the cows consume grass and release methane which is a different organic molecule but still carbon.

Salty
2009-May-12, 05:27 PM
Aren't cows carbon neutral? The grass consumes co2, the cows consume grass and release methane which is a different organic molecule but still carbon.

Aren't cows carbon based life forms? Doesn't change time and expense of R&D, in either event, I would think.

Salty
2009-May-12, 05:31 PM
I remember learning, in mysteries of science, that cattle produce about ten percent of the total methane being released into the atmosphere. Correct me if I am wrong, though, I am trying to sort through about 16yrs of memory, but if that's even close to accurate...

...when I was in General Science (late 1950's), we didn't talk about cattle emissions. :lol:

Anyway, I'll accept your figure. I still think we should be more concerned with oxygen production by plants than methane production by cattle. Plants, atmosphere and oceans have in the past processed more methane out of the atmosphere than we can anticipate from cattle emissions, I would think.

PraedSt
2009-May-12, 06:26 PM
Aren't cows carbon neutral? The grass consumes co2, the cows consume grass and release methane which is a different organic molecule but still carbon.
Good point. I think methane is supposed to be a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but don't quote me on this.

EDIT: Having done a quick search, I find the EPA says
Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources.

EPA/Methane (http://www.epa.gov/methane/)

Ara Pacis
2009-May-13, 03:11 PM
So, getting back to the Cow picture, maybe we do just need to include an afterburner to take care of the bovine methane problem.

Appleblythe
2009-May-13, 04:13 PM
Wow, nice news. Thanks for sharing the link for further reading.

Salty
2009-May-13, 09:52 PM
I have a better, cheaper and quicker idea yet again!

Why don't we just start feeding ungulates grass, hay and grains: instead of food pellets with meat meals mixed in? I can't help but wonder if meat meals in an herbvidore's digestive tract (which tract originally digested only plant life) would cause more than usual gas?
Really, testing the difference in amount and type of gas emissions between pellet fed and flora fed cattle might show surprising results.
Just a thought.

HenrikOlsen
2009-May-14, 11:29 AM
Methane comes as part of the bacterial breakdown of cellulose, feeding them protein isn't what's causing it.
Don't fall into the "natural is better" trap.

NEOWatcher
2009-May-14, 12:09 PM
Methane comes as part of the bacterial breakdown of cellulose..
I wasn't sure I knew exactly why, but I do know how certain vegetables react in my system. And believe me, it aint the meat.

Salty
2009-May-14, 10:49 PM
Nag, nag, nag. OK, I'll accept the facts.

But, I stick to my opinion that we should be planting forests hands over fists, where ever we can.

Salty
2009-May-15, 08:12 PM
Oh, good, I get to correct, right below my post.

Actually, I'm going to quibble with your facts.

You see, we humans are omnivores. Our digestive tract handles both fauna and flora. I still maintain that an herbivore digestive tract will be upset by meat meal. That doesn't mean there's not flatulence with only flora intake by ungulates. There certainly is flatulence with flora only fed ungulatres. I'm maintaining that scientists need to research to discern the difference of ungulate emissions, between flora only fed ungulates and feed pellet fed ungulates.

I think I wrote that right.

Ara Pacis
2009-May-16, 03:05 AM
Oh, good, I get to correct, right below my post.

Actually, I'm going to quibble with your facts.

You see, we humans are omnivores. Our digestive tract handles both fauna and flora. I still maintain that an herbivore digestive tract will be upset by meat meal. That doesn't mean there's not flatulence with only flora intake by ungulates. There certainly is flatulence with flora only fed ungulatres. I'm maintaining that scientists need to research to discern the difference of ungulate emissions, between flora only fed ungulates and feed pellet fed ungulates.

I think I wrote that right.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if thay haven't.