Get E-Mail Updates

Meat: The Other Greenhouse Gas

I had a phase in college when I thought that perhaps I would become a vegetarian. I had no real reason for doing so other than thinking that acting sort of hippie-ish seemed like an identity I wanted to try on for a while. That and a good friend at the time was a vegetarian. Vegan was a little too extreme for my little experiment, so I decided dairy would be okay; yogurt and ice cream were close companions and I dared not part from them.

This little charade lasted about two weeks. I was a college athlete and suddenly found myself completely protein deficient. And while it is of course possible to get enough protein from other sources, I was either completely unaware or happened to strongly dislike those other sources at the time. Forget beans and nuts and legumes. I was eating Wheat Thins and tomatoes with the occasional cucumber thrown in. Of course there was my friend the cup of yogurt, but I was starving for protein. So I added chicken back to the plate.

All kidding aside, there is something to be said about eating your veggies. We Americans have a penchant for meat. Our meals revolve around it. First we decide what the meat dish will be and then we dabble in the sides. In 9 out of 10 meals, veggies are the sides. I have to say, I am increasingly aware of how lopsided this view of the dinner plate actually is. It just seems to me that we would be significantly healthier if we started with the veggies and then worked our way over to the cattle ranch.

My oldest son is about as picky an eater as they come. For about three years the child ate no meat except for chicken nuggets (which hardly count as meat). He is now 6 and has had maybe 5 bits of beef in his entire life.

But give that child a pile of fruit, a stack of carrots or cucumbers and watch him go. He can plow through an entire pint of blackberries without taking a breath. In a panic I once asked my pediatrician if this was okay.

I am an American mom -- I wanted to see him throwing down some meat. So I said this to our doctor: "Is it okay that all he eats are fruits and vegetables, cheeses and yogurts?" He laughed and said "Well, some people actually choose to raise their children this way, they are called vegetarians."

"Oh, right."

But all college trendiness aside, there are good reasons to, at the very least, reduce your meat consumption. According to the well-loved, earth-friendly classic, Diet for a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe, it takes about 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef.

The average grain-fed animal who is heading to the slaughterhouse will down 2.5 tons of grain and feed per year! If you think about it for a moment, it makes more sense to just consume that 16 pounds of grain rather than stuff it into an animal that will only yield one pound of meat as a result. Lappe tells us that those 16 pounds have 21 times more calories and 8 times the protein of that burger.

Add that to the fact that gassy livestock blow enough methane into the air each year that worldwide it is estimated that they are responsible for 15-20% of the yearly greenhouse gas emissions on our little planet. Seriously. Cow farts are killing us.

The UN estimates that if every American simply skipped meat ONE day per week, that we would save the CO2 equivalent of flying from NY to LA 90 million times! Sounds staggering, eh? Methane is considerably more potent in our atmosphere than CO2; it packs a much greater climate punch.

So give it a thought. Can you skip meat one day per week? I actually only eat meat ONE day per week. I'm a six day a week vegetarian of sorts. I eat yogurt and tons of cheese. Once a month I toss in an egg. I'm not neurotic or crazy about it. Just conscious.

So try on the trend. Just one day at a time. You may find you like it and if so, another green step for you!

portrait-tracey-bianchiTracey Bianchi blogs about finding a saner, greener life from the heart of the Chicago suburbs. She wrote Green Mama: The Guilt-Free Guide to Helping You and Your Kids Save the Planet (Zondervan 2009) and blogs at traceybianchi.com.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: nuclearferret

09-24-2009 @ 2:30pm

"Can you skip meat one day per week?"

The Church used to call that day "Friday."

by: PastorGreg

09-24-2009 @ 3:10pm

"Cow farts are killing us." I love it! Thanks for the post Tracey. A few years back, I changed my eating habits and instead of eating meat every day, I started eating it only 1-2 times per week. I lost 30 pounds doing that and I mixed in exercise and lost another 20 pounds. It's amazing how much better I felt. I even started sleeping better.

by: SisterMarie

09-24-2009 @ 4:37pm

If God did not intend for us to eat beef, why did He make cows so slow? Have you ever eaten a cheetah burger?

by: nuclearferret

09-24-2009 @ 2:30pm

"Can you skip meat one day per week?"

The Church used to call that day "Friday."

by: PastorGreg

09-24-2009 @ 3:10pm

"Cow farts are killing us." I love it! Thanks for the post Tracey. A few years back, I changed my eating habits and instead of eating meat every day, I started eating it only 1-2 times per week. I lost 30 pounds doing that and I mixed in exercise and lost another 20 pounds. It's amazing how much better I felt. I even started sleeping better.

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 2:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395

by: SisterMarie

09-24-2009 @ 4:37pm

If God did not intend for us to eat beef, why did He make cows so slow? Have you ever eaten a cheetah burger?

by: seekingdisciple

09-24-2009 @ 8:49pm

My answer to skipping meat: no. Thanks.

by: OK84

09-25-2009 @ 12:23am

The veggie argument is that only 10% of energy captured by plants is transferred to the animal that eats the plant-- so by eating the animal instead of the plant 90% of the energy is lost.
However, if cows are eating vegetation that no person would eat (e.g. prairie grasses) then this is an efficient transfer of this energy into food. The Carbon leaving from cattle as gas would decompose if not eaten by cattle. But, if cattle are eating grain as they do in the industrialized agriculture then the whole process is inefficient.

by: T5630

09-29-2009 @ 4:10pm

You make a good point! Thank you for the insight here, it is helpful. Although I did do a bit of research on it but not in the direction you discuss regarding cattle in Wyoming and SD and places like this. Most research suggests that air travel accounts for about 2-3% of global warming. Which is HUGE for one industry and as you say (but a far cry from the 15-20% of the cattle etc. industries), part of the issue there, I agree, is like you said, dumping CO2 from planes in places where it might not normally land on its own. So yes, I agree.

But we cannot underestimate the impact raising and producing meat places on our ecosystems. And raising livestock does seem to make "man's" life easier, but there is a point at which, like every good thing, it can be taken to an extreme. I am also not certain that God intended for us to cover every inch of the globe with our presence in this exact way (am guessing you would agree with this). Some places were meant to be left for us to simply soak up God's presence.

And God also left us lots of fruit and vegetables to fill our stomachs. The size and scope of our meat consumption is lopsided today.

Just a few additional thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to connect.

by: seekingdisciple

09-24-2009 @ 8:49pm

My answer to skipping meat: no. Thanks.

by: patwentworth

09-25-2009 @ 9:43am

Bad science and even more bad information. You should get your facts straight before quoting any propaganda from the UN.

1) Methane in the atmosphere has decreased over the last 8 years yet cattle numbers have risen.
2) Greenhouse gases are actually good for the planet.
3) AS CO2 increases, we can grow more food - not less.
4) The planet hasn't warmed in almost 10 years. And it's not because of anything or any policy levled by a government. It's the SUN, stupid.
5) The CO2 level hasn't risen in 10 years. The place they now measure it is in Hawaii - adjacent to an active volcano - duh! That's the only place where the CO2 level has risen.
6) Human activity (including livestock) account for 8 gigatons of CO2 a year. Sounds like a lot. But the rest of the planet (oceans, forest etc. - i.e. nature) emits over 42,000 gigatons of CO2 making the human component less than .0002 of 1% of the total atmospheric CO2.

Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on.

by: justes

09-25-2009 @ 10:30am

Excellent post OK84. We must factor in the social/external costs of our actions if we are to lead the world into a sustainable future.

Eat beans, not meat. Can we the people of planet Earth regain the lead in methane production?

by: docmat

09-25-2009 @ 11:32am

This paper does not have much actually researched information. Beef can be produced which has no grain at all. This feed material can be produced in areas where no farming is possible, ever drive across Wyoming or South Dakota? Cattle act to protect the land and recycle nutrients. The real problem with global warming is the huge amounts of CO2 that are being depostited by airplanes in an area where CO2 is not usually found. Raising livestock to help make man's life easier is why he was able to leave his roots of origination and cover the entire globe with his presence.

by: OK84

09-25-2009 @ 12:23am

The veggie argument is that only 10% of energy captured by plants is transferred to the animal that eats the plant-- so by eating the animal instead of the plant 90% of the energy is lost.
However, if cows are eating vegetation that no person would eat (e.g. prairie grasses) then this is an efficient transfer of this energy into food. The Carbon leaving from cattle as gas would decompose if not eaten by cattle. But, if cattle are eating grain as they do in the industrialized agriculture then the whole process is inefficient.

by: T5630

09-29-2009 @ 4:10pm

You make a good point! Thank you for the insight here, it is helpful. Although I did do a bit of research on it but not in the direction you discuss regarding cattle in Wyoming and SD and places like this. Most research suggests that air travel accounts for about 2-3% of global warming. Which is HUGE for one industry and as you say (but a far cry from the 15-20% of the cattle etc. industries), part of the issue there, I agree, is like you said, dumping CO2 from planes in places where it might not normally land on its own. So yes, I agree.

But we cannot underestimate the impact raising and producing meat places on our ecosystems. And raising livestock does seem to make "man's" life easier, but there is a point at which, like every good thing, it can be taken to an extreme. I am also not certain that God intended for us to cover every inch of the globe with our presence in this exact way (am guessing you would agree with this). Some places were meant to be left for us to simply soak up God's presence.

And God also left us lots of fruit and vegetables to fill our stomachs. The size and scope of our meat consumption is lopsided today.

Just a few additional thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to connect.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:35pm

Thanks for this post. Our political leaders, even those who claim to be most concerned about global warming (like Al Gore), refuse to touch this subject. President Obama's forays into local restaurants have always been for meat - hamburgers, hot dogs, etc. In response to a question once, he did acknowledge the effect of meat on global warming, but insisted he would keep eating it anyway. And the Agriculture Department continues to promote animal-based food production.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:36pm

Just a second note. Michelle Obama has concentrated on promoting locally grown vegetables and fruits. Unfortunately, Barack not Michelle is President.

by: patwentworth

09-25-2009 @ 9:43am

Bad science and even more bad information. You should get your facts straight before quoting any propaganda from the UN.

1) Methane in the atmosphere has decreased over the last 8 years yet cattle numbers have risen.
2) Greenhouse gases are actually good for the planet.
3) AS CO2 increases, we can grow more food - not less.
4) The planet hasn't warmed in almost 10 years. And it's not because of anything or any policy levled by a government. It's the SUN, stupid.
5) The CO2 level hasn't risen in 10 years. The place they now measure it is in Hawaii - adjacent to an active volcano - duh! That's the only place where the CO2 level has risen.
6) Human activity (including livestock) account for 8 gigatons of CO2 a year. Sounds like a lot. But the rest of the planet (oceans, forest etc. - i.e. nature) emits over 42,000 gigatons of CO2 making the human component less than .0002 of 1% of the total atmospheric CO2.

Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on.

by: justes

09-25-2009 @ 10:30am

Excellent post OK84. We must factor in the social/external costs of our actions if we are to lead the world into a sustainable future.

Eat beans, not meat. Can we the people of planet Earth regain the lead in methane production?

by: docmat

09-25-2009 @ 11:32am

This paper does not have much actually researched information. Beef can be produced which has no grain at all. This feed material can be produced in areas where no farming is possible, ever drive across Wyoming or South Dakota? Cattle act to protect the land and recycle nutrients. The real problem with global warming is the huge amounts of CO2 that are being depostited by airplanes in an area where CO2 is not usually found. Raising livestock to help make man's life easier is why he was able to leave his roots of origination and cover the entire globe with his presence.

by: natan

09-25-2009 @ 4:25pm

what a load of b.s. (no pun intended). Is there any reputable source for your 'facts', patwentworth? because they seem to be responses pandering to the simple minded, at best, and are almost all blatantly false. Please.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:35pm

Thanks for this post. Our political leaders, even those who claim to be most concerned about global warming (like Al Gore), refuse to touch this subject. President Obama's forays into local restaurants have always been for meat - hamburgers, hot dogs, etc. In response to a question once, he did acknowledge the effect of meat on global warming, but insisted he would keep eating it anyway. And the Agriculture Department continues to promote animal-based food production.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:36pm

Just a second note. Michelle Obama has concentrated on promoting locally grown vegetables and fruits. Unfortunately, Barack not Michelle is President.

by: natan

09-25-2009 @ 4:25pm

what a load of b.s. (no pun intended). Is there any reputable source for your 'facts', patwentworth? because they seem to be responses pandering to the simple minded, at best, and are almost all blatantly false. Please.

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 12:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395

by: letjusticerolldown

09-26-2009 @ 4:00pm

"Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on."

Thank you for not siting any sources--which should definitely be on the Do Not Read list.

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 12:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 2:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395

by: letjusticerolldown

09-26-2009 @ 4:00pm

"Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on."

Thank you for not siting any sources--which should definitely be on the Do Not Read list.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: nuclearferret

09-24-2009 @ 2:30pm

"Can you skip meat one day per week?"

The Church used to call that day "Friday."

by: nuclearferret

09-24-2009 @ 2:30pm

"Can you skip meat one day per week?"

The Church used to call that day "Friday."

by: PastorGreg

09-24-2009 @ 3:10pm

"Cow farts are killing us." I love it! Thanks for the post Tracey. A few years back, I changed my eating habits and instead of eating meat every day, I started eating it only 1-2 times per week. I lost 30 pounds doing that and I mixed in exercise and lost another 20 pounds. It's amazing how much better I felt. I even started sleeping better.

by: PastorGreg

09-24-2009 @ 3:10pm

"Cow farts are killing us." I love it! Thanks for the post Tracey. A few years back, I changed my eating habits and instead of eating meat every day, I started eating it only 1-2 times per week. I lost 30 pounds doing that and I mixed in exercise and lost another 20 pounds. It's amazing how much better I felt. I even started sleeping better.

by: SisterMarie

09-24-2009 @ 4:37pm

If God did not intend for us to eat beef, why did He make cows so slow? Have you ever eaten a cheetah burger?

by: SisterMarie

09-24-2009 @ 4:37pm

If God did not intend for us to eat beef, why did He make cows so slow? Have you ever eaten a cheetah burger?

by: seekingdisciple

09-24-2009 @ 8:49pm

My answer to skipping meat: no. Thanks.

by: seekingdisciple

09-24-2009 @ 8:49pm

My answer to skipping meat: no. Thanks.

by: OK84

09-25-2009 @ 12:23am

The veggie argument is that only 10% of energy captured by plants is transferred to the animal that eats the plant-- so by eating the animal instead of the plant 90% of the energy is lost.
However, if cows are eating vegetation that no person would eat (e.g. prairie grasses) then this is an efficient transfer of this energy into food. The Carbon leaving from cattle as gas would decompose if not eaten by cattle. But, if cattle are eating grain as they do in the industrialized agriculture then the whole process is inefficient.

by: OK84

09-25-2009 @ 12:23am

The veggie argument is that only 10% of energy captured by plants is transferred to the animal that eats the plant-- so by eating the animal instead of the plant 90% of the energy is lost.
However, if cows are eating vegetation that no person would eat (e.g. prairie grasses) then this is an efficient transfer of this energy into food. The Carbon leaving from cattle as gas would decompose if not eaten by cattle. But, if cattle are eating grain as they do in the industrialized agriculture then the whole process is inefficient.

by: patwentworth

09-25-2009 @ 9:43am

Bad science and even more bad information. You should get your facts straight before quoting any propaganda from the UN.

1) Methane in the atmosphere has decreased over the last 8 years yet cattle numbers have risen.
2) Greenhouse gases are actually good for the planet.
3) AS CO2 increases, we can grow more food - not less.
4) The planet hasn't warmed in almost 10 years. And it's not because of anything or any policy levled by a government. It's the SUN, stupid.
5) The CO2 level hasn't risen in 10 years. The place they now measure it is in Hawaii - adjacent to an active volcano - duh! That's the only place where the CO2 level has risen.
6) Human activity (including livestock) account for 8 gigatons of CO2 a year. Sounds like a lot. But the rest of the planet (oceans, forest etc. - i.e. nature) emits over 42,000 gigatons of CO2 making the human component less than .0002 of 1% of the total atmospheric CO2.

Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on.

by: patwentworth

09-25-2009 @ 9:43am

Bad science and even more bad information. You should get your facts straight before quoting any propaganda from the UN.

1) Methane in the atmosphere has decreased over the last 8 years yet cattle numbers have risen.
2) Greenhouse gases are actually good for the planet.
3) AS CO2 increases, we can grow more food - not less.
4) The planet hasn't warmed in almost 10 years. And it's not because of anything or any policy levled by a government. It's the SUN, stupid.
5) The CO2 level hasn't risen in 10 years. The place they now measure it is in Hawaii - adjacent to an active volcano - duh! That's the only place where the CO2 level has risen.
6) Human activity (including livestock) account for 8 gigatons of CO2 a year. Sounds like a lot. But the rest of the planet (oceans, forest etc. - i.e. nature) emits over 42,000 gigatons of CO2 making the human component less than .0002 of 1% of the total atmospheric CO2.

Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on.

by: justes

09-25-2009 @ 10:30am

Excellent post OK84. We must factor in the social/external costs of our actions if we are to lead the world into a sustainable future.

Eat beans, not meat. Can we the people of planet Earth regain the lead in methane production?

by: justes

09-25-2009 @ 10:30am

Excellent post OK84. We must factor in the social/external costs of our actions if we are to lead the world into a sustainable future.

Eat beans, not meat. Can we the people of planet Earth regain the lead in methane production?

by: docmat

09-25-2009 @ 11:32am

This paper does not have much actually researched information. Beef can be produced which has no grain at all. This feed material can be produced in areas where no farming is possible, ever drive across Wyoming or South Dakota? Cattle act to protect the land and recycle nutrients. The real problem with global warming is the huge amounts of CO2 that are being depostited by airplanes in an area where CO2 is not usually found. Raising livestock to help make man's life easier is why he was able to leave his roots of origination and cover the entire globe with his presence.

by: docmat

09-25-2009 @ 11:32am

This paper does not have much actually researched information. Beef can be produced which has no grain at all. This feed material can be produced in areas where no farming is possible, ever drive across Wyoming or South Dakota? Cattle act to protect the land and recycle nutrients. The real problem with global warming is the huge amounts of CO2 that are being depostited by airplanes in an area where CO2 is not usually found. Raising livestock to help make man's life easier is why he was able to leave his roots of origination and cover the entire globe with his presence.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:35pm

Thanks for this post. Our political leaders, even those who claim to be most concerned about global warming (like Al Gore), refuse to touch this subject. President Obama's forays into local restaurants have always been for meat - hamburgers, hot dogs, etc. In response to a question once, he did acknowledge the effect of meat on global warming, but insisted he would keep eating it anyway. And the Agriculture Department continues to promote animal-based food production.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:35pm

Thanks for this post. Our political leaders, even those who claim to be most concerned about global warming (like Al Gore), refuse to touch this subject. President Obama's forays into local restaurants have always been for meat - hamburgers, hot dogs, etc. In response to a question once, he did acknowledge the effect of meat on global warming, but insisted he would keep eating it anyway. And the Agriculture Department continues to promote animal-based food production.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:36pm

Just a second note. Michelle Obama has concentrated on promoting locally grown vegetables and fruits. Unfortunately, Barack not Michelle is President.

by: BillSamuel

09-25-2009 @ 1:36pm

Just a second note. Michelle Obama has concentrated on promoting locally grown vegetables and fruits. Unfortunately, Barack not Michelle is President.

by: natan

09-25-2009 @ 4:25pm

what a load of b.s. (no pun intended). Is there any reputable source for your 'facts', patwentworth? because they seem to be responses pandering to the simple minded, at best, and are almost all blatantly false. Please.

by: natan

09-25-2009 @ 4:25pm

what a load of b.s. (no pun intended). Is there any reputable source for your 'facts', patwentworth? because they seem to be responses pandering to the simple minded, at best, and are almost all blatantly false. Please.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-26-2009 @ 4:00pm

"Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on."

Thank you for not siting any sources--which should definitely be on the Do Not Read list.

by: letjusticerolldown

09-26-2009 @ 4:00pm

"Read something besides Time or Newsweek to find out what is really going on."

Thank you for not siting any sources--which should definitely be on the Do Not Read list.

by: T5630

09-29-2009 @ 4:10pm

You make a good point! Thank you for the insight here, it is helpful. Although I did do a bit of research on it but not in the direction you discuss regarding cattle in Wyoming and SD and places like this. Most research suggests that air travel accounts for about 2-3% of global warming. Which is HUGE for one industry and as you say (but a far cry from the 15-20% of the cattle etc. industries), part of the issue there, I agree, is like you said, dumping CO2 from planes in places where it might not normally land on its own. So yes, I agree.

But we cannot underestimate the impact raising and producing meat places on our ecosystems. And raising livestock does seem to make "man's" life easier, but there is a point at which, like every good thing, it can be taken to an extreme. I am also not certain that God intended for us to cover every inch of the globe with our presence in this exact way (am guessing you would agree with this). Some places were meant to be left for us to simply soak up God's presence.

And God also left us lots of fruit and vegetables to fill our stomachs. The size and scope of our meat consumption is lopsided today.

Just a few additional thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to connect.

by: T5630

09-29-2009 @ 4:10pm

You make a good point! Thank you for the insight here, it is helpful. Although I did do a bit of research on it but not in the direction you discuss regarding cattle in Wyoming and SD and places like this. Most research suggests that air travel accounts for about 2-3% of global warming. Which is HUGE for one industry and as you say (but a far cry from the 15-20% of the cattle etc. industries), part of the issue there, I agree, is like you said, dumping CO2 from planes in places where it might not normally land on its own. So yes, I agree.

But we cannot underestimate the impact raising and producing meat places on our ecosystems. And raising livestock does seem to make "man's" life easier, but there is a point at which, like every good thing, it can be taken to an extreme. I am also not certain that God intended for us to cover every inch of the globe with our presence in this exact way (am guessing you would agree with this). Some places were meant to be left for us to simply soak up God's presence.

And God also left us lots of fruit and vegetables to fill our stomachs. The size and scope of our meat consumption is lopsided today.

Just a few additional thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to connect.

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 12:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 12:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 2:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395

by: docmat

09-30-2009 @ 2:36pm

Thank you for your reply,

The DEQ has published figures that greatly refute the figure you use as the
contribution from livestock agriculture to green house gases. I wrote a
paper on carbon capture for the Western Livestock Journal almost 15 years
ago on possible temperature rise do to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. I
find it interesting that people just grab the figure that was written about
Agriculture emissions by an author from a third world country that has a
religous issue with cattle, and that becomes the gold standard for the truth
on the issue.

Carbon cycle is a natural rule. Green, young, growing plants capture carbon
and put in a sequestered state. Algae do the same thing. The largest
methane source in the world comes from the free emission from the costal
shores where algae has captured carbon and sank. The sink becomes covered
with sediment and then anaerobic events occur to release methane. The exact
thing is happening in the coal bed natural gas that is being harvested in
Wyoming.

When white men discovered the new world it was heavily populated with wild
ruminants. These animals were then displaced with domestic ruminants. The
animals produce similar amounts of methane from incomplete digestion of
feeds. These feeds, primarily from mature grass will be digested by the
soil microbes any way as they go through the seasonal growing pattern. The
microbes digest with methane production the cellulose portions of the grass
and return the nutrients to the soil. Cattle do the same thing with the
microbes being in the rumen.

The DEQ figures are that livestock agriculture produces around 2.5% of green
house gases. Land fills, wet lands, and ruptures from the off shore stores
of methane produce much more of the contribution. The 7.5 billion humans
also produce a great amount ot CO2 by normal respiration.

Thank you for your interest,

Matthew J Cherni, MS, DVM
307-655-9395