Cow farts and the end of the world ...

[Jerry Freeman]

For several years now, I've wondered about the role or non-role of bovine digestion-generated methane in global warming. Some have argued that it's a big contributor to greenhouse gasses, while others don't seem to be concerned about it at all.

Friday, I heard something on the radio (NPR's "Science Friday" with Ira Flato) that may shed some light on the question. Ira was interviewing the scientist who's developing a device to efficiently extract hydrogen from biomass-derived ethanol.

The byproduct, it turns out, is carbon dioxide. Of course, Ira asked, "Doesn't that contribute to global warming?"

The answer, according to the scientist, is no. Carbon dioxide that comes from extracting the energy in plant produced sugars/starches/cellulose gets reabsorbed in the next round of plant growth through photosynthesis. So the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't increase over time when it comes from recent plant sources.

On the other hand, carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will remain in the atmosphere and not be recycled unless the amount of photosynthesis on the planet increases in proportion to the amount of fossil fuel derived CO2 being released.

I wonder if this principle would also apply to those famous cow farts, since the original source of the methane is recent photosynthesis. Perhaps there's something about methane that makes it more of a problem than CO2, however. Can anyone answer this?

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Duffy]

Perhaps there's something about methane that makes it more of a problem than CO2, however. Can anyone answer this?

After my recent bash of OTs, I know I should just butt out and not stick my nose into this topic. However, IMHO Ira is full of it. CO2 is CO2, no variations. And theories about flatulance, Bovine or otherwise, at their best lack substance. I do share your concern, since methane affects my senses and draws my attention much more often than CO2.

[burnsbyrne]

The henny-pennys of the world see the sky falling from the massive numbers of cattle presently munching on the land, but I wonder if there really are more ruminants in the world now than there were when millions of bison roamed the North American plains and myriad buffalo and elephants and other creatures lived and farted in the velts of Africa. That is, before humans anihilated them to replace them with more docile species.
Mike

[sturob]

I think Ira's full of methane too. I have read a bunch of stuff that counters green-party-crap about the evils of the West and industrialization with figures that draught animals in the third world produce more "greenhouse gases" than do all the industrial plants and cars in the industrialized world.

Here are some stats:

Estimates of global methane sources, in million tons/year:

Natural: (Wetlands 115, oceans 15, termites 20, burning 10): 160

Energy/refuse: (Gas/oil 50, coal 40, charcoal 10, landfills 30, wastewater 25): 155

Agricultural: (Rice 60, livestock 80, manure 10, burning 5): 165

Methane can influence global climate directly through its interaction with long-wave infrared energy. Atmospheric oxidation reactions of methane produce CO2, a potent greenhouse gas. In both ways it contributes towards climatic change and global warming. Methane is expected to cause 15-17% of the global warming over the next 50 years (IPCC, 1992). . . Cattle typically lose 6% of their ingested energy as eructated methane (they burp). It has been estimated that the world's 1.3 billion cattle account for about 73% of the total 80 million tons of methane produced annually by livestock.

The interesting point of that article was that people often put slants on these figures based on their political agendas. The authors contend that if the agricultural material consumed by these cattle were left to rot, more methane would be produced, so we shouldn't blame the cattle.

But it seems relatively incontrovertible that animals produce gobs of methane and CO2. And CO2 is CO2. Methane is methane.

Stuart

[RonKiley]

Could it be that the modern "developers" who clear cut a piece of land so they can build some new houses no one can afford are reducing the amount of photosynthesis. Is the loss of trees and shrubbery and other plant life the real culprit. This has really affected the rivers and streams in this area. The soil is depleted so chemicals are added that run off into the river because there are no plants to contain them. Maybe this is not a problem in other areas but it sure is here.

Ron

[peeplj]

As an entirely non-informative aside, I just had to share this:

My sister Trisha has this bizarre notion that breathing methane will make you grow larger...substantially larger, if you breath enough of it.

See, for religious reasons she is morally offended that there were once dinosaurs, even though there aren't any more. (Well, not counting birds...but the thought that birds are modern-day dinosaurs is also morally offensive to her, also for religous reasons.)

So her theory is that what we think were dinosuars were actually lizards grown monstrous big from breathing all the methane the other large lizards had produced.

So I reckon unless you want to wind up the size of Kong, you might wanna avoid breathing methane!

--James

[Duffy]

When the millions of herbivore were roaming and farting, poor ole herman and henrietta human were very busy locating food and clothing because Walmarts and toysRus hadn't been opened yet. Nobody had time to hug trees or worry about how a movie would offend the beliefs of the illiterate masses, or who exposed what at half time. Our animal skin clad (gasp) ancestors might even have welcomed global warming during several rather cool periods of history.

Now let me get it right, global warming will cause the glaciers to reappear at the edge of Peoria, Berne, and Bejing; but we'll be able to drive to Murmansk without crossing any major bridges and build new subdivisions where SF Bay used to be; if we're allowed to drill in the vast areas designated as oil reserves to get the needed fuel.

[brewerpaul]

Is it just me, or is the idea of someone named FLATO doing a story on intestinal gas hilarious?

[Jerry Freeman]

To begin with, please stop criticizing Ira Flato for an answer given by a guest on his show. All Ira did was ask a logical question.

Second, I have doubts about the assertion, "CO2 is CO2, no matter where it comes from."

If the source of the CO2 is the release of energy that was stored from recent photosynthesis, that CO2 will (or at least can) be recycled by photosynthesis occurring in the next rounds of the same kind of vegetation that provided the energy to begin with. The fact is, that CO2 was actually in the atmosphere only a short time before being stored by the plants and then released again. This isn't true if the CO2 comes from fossil fuels.

That means, if we reduce the amount of fossil fuel and increase the amount of biomass used for energy, there should be a proportional reduction in the amount of CO2 our energy consumption LEAVES in the atmosphere.

And, as Ron pointed out, the critical factor in this whole package is photosynthesis, so we have to look at what's going on in the plant world and what effect we are having on it.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Jerry Freeman]

Is it just me, or is the idea of someone named FLATO doing a story on intestinal gas hilarious?

It rhymes with Plato.

The interview was about the new technology for producing hydrogen from ethanol. There was no mention of methane, cows, etc. on the interview.

Now, if everyone will please go back and reread the original post, there will be a test at the end, worth 25% of your final grade.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Celtoid]

I like cows better than I like people in general, and there are 6.2 billion farting people out there, with some nationalities farting more than their share because they eat more than they deserve.

Cows are civilized even though most cannot play the whistle.

You don't see cows sacrificing other cows and then making movies about cow sacrifice.

Edited to add that cows have often been the victims of sacrifice, yet few cows conspire to do the same to people.

[Duffy]

What we need is a good 70's reunion band using a photosynthesizer to projuct images that will alter the consciousness of over fed flatulant .....

What was that Dale? OK, I'll go back to the pasture and lurk with the holstiens and rethink my responses.

[TonyHiggins]

Interesting thing about this thread is the illustration in microcosm of the human psyche. I went back and reread the earlier posts to look at where the arguments came from. Some misinterpretation or misreading here and there and focus on points that support one's own view. It happens at all levels and is what allows politicians to get away with it. So, if I make my points, they'll come out as more noise, no more worthy of consideration than another's.

If I haven't irritated everyone with my condescension, consider an article in Mar 03 Discover magazine. It's about methane stores in the sea floor. The intro reads, "...nearly a third of all the life on this planet consists of microbes living under the seafloor ...make so much methane gas that if even a small proportion of it is released, we might be overwhelmed by huge tsunamis, ruaway global warming, and extinctions...total amount of methane made by these microbes is probably greater than the mass of all known reserves of coal, gas, and oil...huge belches have been linked to rapid changes in Earthhs climate...may have helped pull the planet out of recent ice ages, and they almost certainly helped end the Paleocene Epoch 55million years ago with an intense burst of global warming...Blasts of it have been linked, in respectable journals, to mass extinctions, to undersea landslides that caused ocean-crossing tsunamis,and even to the mysterious disappearance of ships at sea.

We do have control over our behaviors and how they effect the environment to some degree. I'm troubled by the burning down of the world's rain forests. Another article I read recently pointed out the inadequacy of all the alternative fuels/power sources to meet the demands supplied by oil. When we run low on affordably extractable sources, things are going to change in a big way for our modern society.

Natural events/disasters like volcano eruptions and big asteroid impacts, as infrequent as they are, make all our messes trivial in comparison. No excuse to misbehave, however. Just don't be smug, either.
Tony

[missy]

I donno, but I once sent Dave Barry the "official" EPA report on cows, methane, and all. He wrote me back and told me I was sicker than he is.


Missy

[david robertson]

So, Tonyhiggins, you're saying it's a worldwide Planet-f*rt we need to be sh*t ourselves about?