U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2018, 05:09 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,031,909 times
Reputation: 5940

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Roflmao!

You just said that with regards to th carbon cycle for every one carbon dioxide taken in and stored by plants cows release one methane.


Better start moving your lips when you read again:


No, I said every c in a ch4 released in flatus started out as a c in atm co2. Very little of the original co2 taken in as food is turned into ch4...and all of that is returned to co2 in a geologically very short period of time. A cow is 2000 lb of aerobic cells producing co2 and it shelters only about 50 lb of anaeroibic bacteria producing ch4.


BTW-there are newer papers showing it only takes 2-3 yrs for the methane to become fully oxidized, rather than the 9 yrs commonly stated. It will take further verification to change everyone's mind. As the Wiki article stated, it only takes 2 minutes for all the newly released methane to undergo its first oxidation conversion to a hydroxylated methane complex. Probably nobody has studied the GHG effect of that (and further) oxidation moieties-- probably too short lived to study.


In scientific calculations, you can often get a meaningful answer even if you ignore some small factors: you can use the simple Newtonian theory of gravity to put a man on the moon and get him back again, but you can't ignore the small relativistic factors if you're plotting the orbit of the planet Mercury.... You can ignore the wind resistance factors if you're plotting the trajectory of a bowling ball dropped from 20 ft, but you can't ignore them when you're plotting your flight plan for your airplane....and given the low concentration of methane in the air, it can be ignored when predicting the weather.


And ultimately this discussion gets back to the concept of "rising methane." Living sources, like cattle, DO NOT cause a rise in ch4-- it's a CYCLE.


co2 or ch4 levels ONLY rise when they are formed and released from SEQUESTERED sources of carbon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2018, 10:08 AM
 
16,565 posts, read 13,995,893 times
Reputation: 20517
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Better start moving your lips when you read again:


No, I said every c in a ch4 released in flatus started out as a c in atm co2. Very little of the original co2 taken in as food is turned into ch4...and all of that is returned to co2 in a geologically very short period of time. A cow is 2000 lb of aerobic cells producing co2 and it shelters only about 50 lb of anaeroibic bacteria producing ch4.
Shows how little you actually know about this subject. Most of the methane emitted by cattle is orally. So maybe you should stop pretending you have any expertise.

Grainger, C., T. Clarke, S. M. McGinn, M. J. Auldist, K. A. Beauchemin, M. C. Hannah, G. C. Waghorn, H. Clark, and R. J. Eckard. "Methane emissions from dairy cows measured using the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer and chamber techniques." Journal of dairy science 90, no. 6 (2007): 2755-2766.

Second, none of the above is the point. It doesn't matter if a cow only released one single methane molecule a year. That is methane that otherwise would have been CO2, and that single molecule is now 30x stronger as a greenhouse gas than the CO2 it had been before the cow. Arguing against that FACT is idiocy.

And lets be clear, the average cow is releasing 20 or so grams of methane for every single kilogram of feed. The average head of cattle eats 11kg of feed a day, which means that they are releasing 200g+ a day. That is 73kg of methane per cow a year. That is 2.74 x 10^27 molecules of methane released per cow per year. And every single one of those molecules has a 30x higher greenhouse effect.


Quote:
BTW-there are newer papers showing it only takes 2-3 yrs for the methane to become fully oxidized, rather than the 9 yrs commonly stated. It will take further verification to change everyone's mind. As the Wiki article stated, it only takes 2 minutes for all the newly released methane to undergo its first oxidation conversion to a hydroxylated methane complex. Probably nobody has studied the GHG effect of that (and further) oxidation moieties-- probably too short lived to study.
You should try providing citations like I do.

And that would be relevant if cows only lived for a single year. But the yearly emissions of methane are still rising because the number of cows are. Sure after the residence time that methane will be oxidized but more has since been released.


Quote:
In scientific calculations, you can often get a meaningful answer even if you ignore some small factors: you can use the simple Newtonian theory of gravity to put a man on the moon and get him back again, but you can't ignore the small relativistic factors if you're plotting the orbit of the planet Mercury.... You can ignore the wind resistance factors if you're plotting the trajectory of a bowling ball dropped from 20 ft, but you can't ignore them when you're plotting your flight plan for your airplane....and given the low concentration of methane in the air, it can be ignored when predicting the weather.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
And ultimately this discussion gets back to the concept of "rising methane." Living sources, like cattle, DO NOT cause a rise in ch4-- it's a CYCLE.
Again, shows how little you know, cycles can cause changes in atmospheric concentrations. Hell the Milankovitch cycle is the largest factor effecting atmospheric concentrations and its a CYCLE. Converting methane to CO2 changes the heat budget of the planet. SIMPLE FACT.


Quote:
co2 or ch4 levels ONLY rise when they are formed and released from SEQUESTERED sources of carbon.
ROLFMAO!

NONSENSE and a complete lack of understand of chemistry. CO2 is going down by amount Y while methane is going up by Y. But Methane is 30 times stronger as a green house gas. So now what would have been a green house effect of Y is now a greenhouse effect of 30Y. Pretending otherwise is a lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2018, 11:34 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,031,909 times
Reputation: 5940
using your numbers: 11,000gm of feed (essentially all glucose polymers) ….glucose mol wt = 180g/mole...co2 mol wt =44g/mol...methane mol wt = 16g/mol


Do some simple arithmetic and we see a cow generates 16,133g of co2/d (almost all glucose turned to co2) and you source claims 200 mg of ch4


Treehuggers report gases meaninglessly in terms of weight. Real chemists use moles. Some more arithmetic and we see 16,133 g of co2 is 367 moles, while 200 g ch4 is 12 moles.


Once again we must conclude-- BFD.


How much a cow generates per yr is immaterial: IT'S A CYCLE! ...If it takes 9 yrs to oxidize ch4 to co2, then each yr 1/9th of all the methane in the air disappears, re-appearing as co2. Because all the biologically sourced ch4 comes from a co2 in the air, that means that no more than 1/9th of all the ch4 in the air was "created" that yr. NO NET CHANGE.


If you have two bank accounts and you keep shifting money back & forth from one to the other, are you getting richer with each transaction? No. ... The only way you can increase your total balance is if you make a new deposit from an OUTSIDE money source...I should explain explicitly to you, a new outside money source is analogous here to burning fossil fuel or mobilizing mineral carbonates -- the ONLY way to increase total carbon GHG levels.

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 10-11-2018 at 11:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2018, 06:19 AM
 
16,565 posts, read 13,995,893 times
Reputation: 20517
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
using your numbers: 11,000gm of feed (essentially all glucose polymers) .glucose mol wt = 180g/mole...co2 mol wt =44g/mol...methane mol wt = 16g/mol


Do some simple arithmetic and we see a cow generates 16,133g of co2/d (almost all glucose turned to co2) and you source claims 200 mg of ch4


Treehuggers report gases meaninglessly in terms of weight. Real chemists use moles. Some more arithmetic and we see 16,133 g of co2 is 367 moles, while 200 g ch4 is 12 moles.


Once again we must conclude-- BFD.
So very much wrong with this post.

1. The pure hypocrisy of whining in a previous post about "small errors" and then pretending feeds aare 100% glucose is literally laughable. Feeds are typically only 70-85% digestible. Yet you used 100% for your "analysis". And you completely ignored the fact that fully 20% of rye grass is protein. You know what that means? Your "analysis" of the amount of CO2 is completely WRONG. And unsurprisingly it vastly over estimates the amount of CO2. Shocking.


2. Your "simple arithmetic" does not remotely change anything because the argument I have made is NOT that all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is being converted to CH4, it is that ANY of the CO2 converted to methane has a 30X higher rate of absorbing heat. As I said before even if it was one molecule of CH4 increased over its lifespan, that is still a change to the heat budget. Which you ignore, over and over. One has to assume at this point it is because you don't understand the concept.


Quote:
How much a cow generates per yr is immaterial: IT'S A CYCLE! ...If it takes 9 yrs to oxidize ch4 to co2, then each yr 1/9th of all the methane in the air disappears, re-appearing as co2. Because all the biologically sourced ch4 comes from a co2 in the air, that means that no more than 1/9th of all the ch4 in the air was "created" that yr. NO NET CHANGE.
This is a lie. The net change isn't in the amount of carbon, it is in the amount of heat absorbed.




Quote:
If you have two bank accounts and you keep shifting money back & forth from one to the other, are you getting richer with each transaction? No. ... The only way you can increase your total balance is if you make a new deposit from an OUTSIDE money source...I should explain explicitly to you, a new outside money source is analogous here to burning fossil fuel or mobilizing mineral carbonates -- the ONLY way to increase total carbon GHG levels.
Your analogy is bogus. It completely ignores that one of your "accounts" (reservoirs of CO2 or CH4)) has a different interest rate (greenhouse effect per molecule) than the other. If you shift more of your money (carbon atoms) from the lower interest account (atmospheric CO2 reservoir) to the higher interest account (atmospheric methane reservoir) your income (the trapped solar radiation) will increase the exact same way the shift in the heat budget is occurring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2018, 10:31 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,031,909 times
Reputation: 5940
OK, let's follow up on your interest bearing account example: one account gets 1% interest and starts with $500 in it. After one yr, its value increases by $5.


The other account earns 30%, but starts with only $1. A year later, you've earned 30 more cents. Even if you added another $1 along the way, it's still only earning 60 cents.


Big deal.


Innumeracy isn't a crime. It's a shame.


BTW- better check your sources on protein in rye grass-- it's <5%. (I think you're quoting the value for rye seed.) Grass is mostly cellulose & lignin- both glucose polymers. That's why cattlemen/horsemen/dairymen feed hay with alfalfa or other legumes (clovers) in it- to increase the protein content. Even at that, the fate of the carbon in amino acids is the same as that in CHOs- it comes from co2 and returns as co2. NO NET CHANGE.


The details of my arithmetic example aren't important-- it's an exercise using a "Fermi Solution"- an estimate based on magnitudes. The point remains- methane generation in ranching is not important enough to the final outcome and can be ignored.


Here's another point for you to ruminate on (pardon the pun):


Enteric generation of methane accounts for 16% of yearly ch4 generation, while natural wetlands account for 22%-- but we have regulations protecting wetlands. If methane is so important, shouldn't we be filling in wetlands?

Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 10-12-2018 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2018, 08:16 PM
 
31 posts, read 19,191 times
Reputation: 56
Instead of animal emissions we need to worry about human emissions. Let's face it, in the 70s we reached 4 billion people we will soon be at 8 billion. That's double the amount of emissions. But people do not want to talk about having to make any changes with human behavior.
I find blaming cow emissions almost laughable. I'm sure there were many more mammals creating emissions before humans started polluting the earth.

Last edited by lighthouse7669; 10-12-2018 at 08:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2018, 04:51 PM
 
Location: somewhere flat
1,375 posts, read 1,209,761 times
Reputation: 4104
Really, it's very simple. We need to realize than factory farming is not a sustainable way to eat or live. I don't know or care what orifice of the cow emits methane. It's more than methane. It involves the misuse of land for reasons that ultimately spring from gluttony.

No one needs meat in order to live. When I saw the topic about using seaweed to reduce methane, I just shook my head and laughed. The answer is simple. Stop factory farming. All farming on a large scale, has a negative environmental impact. E-coli from factory farms pollutes ground water. This is not an issue of choice. Mammalian pathogens from large scale farming operations taint other people's fruits and vegetables. The ones that I eat, am grown children eat, and my granddaughter eats.

To be a "Green" person, and to care about issues that impact our earth, is hollow; if it is not accompanied by some sort of dietary change. I wish that I could say that I am a vegan. In all honesty, I am not. However, I am trying. I recognize that we are beyond "band aid solutions". Large scale animal farming, is not at all compatible with "green living".

Just as "clean coal" is an oxymoron.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 02:33 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,031,909 times
Reputation: 5940
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulJourn View Post
Really, it's very simple. We need to realize than factory farming is not a sustainable way to eat or live. I don't know or care what orifice of the cow emits methane. It's more than methane. It involves the misuse of land for reasons that ultimately spring from gluttony.

No one needs meat in order to live. When I saw the topic about using seaweed to reduce methane, I just shook my head and laughed. The answer is simple. Stop factory farming. All farming on a large scale, has a negative environmental impact. E-coli from factory farms pollutes ground water. This is not an issue of choice. Mammalian pathogens from large scale farming operations taint other people's fruits and vegetables. The ones that I eat, am grown children eat, and my granddaughter eats.

To be a "Green" person, and to care about issues that impact our earth, is hollow; if it is not accompanied by some sort of dietary change. I wish that I could say that I am a vegan. In all honesty, I am not. However, I am trying. I recognize that we are beyond "band aid solutions". Large scale animal farming, is not at all compatible with "green living".

Just as "clean coal" is an oxymoron.

Let me correct the KoolAid you've swallowed:


"Nobody need meat"-- superficially true, but one can stay healthier on an all meat diet more easily than on an all vegan diet. Vegans can only get by because they take advantage of long range shipping of food (I thought that was supposed to unsustainable & bad for the environment?) I could go into a detailed account of human anatomy, physiology and evolution to show you why we are basically carnivores with ability to use plants for some nutrition. Our species developed large brains BECAUSE we were carnivorous. Ever see a cave painting of a kale plant?


RE- sustainability-- as long as we can grow corn & soy for feed, we can keep on producing beef, pork, poultry, lamb, goat etc for food. Pre-Colombian NA had vast expanses of grassland grazed by bison. We've replaced natural grass with another grass (corn) and the bison with their close relative- cattle. Same dif if you diagram the situation. (Disclaimer- I'd prefer to see a return to prairie and grass-fed cattle like we did prior to the spread of feed lots in the mid-6os.) Feedlot meat isn't any better or worse than pastured meat-- it's cheaper.


RE- water contamination-- not with proper handling of manure in the feedlots; not a problem at all with pastured animals. Is there a difference between natural bison pies vs cow pies? (Actually, there is- bison carry Brucellosis; cattle rarely do.) E.coli isn't generally a pathogen, although there are some rare pathogenic strains. How many people drink untreated run-off from streams, rivers or lakes? Private & municipal wells are deep enough that they get naturally filtered and the water is clean. This just isn't a problem as you've stated it.


You might also check the data on food borne illness -- the vast majority of outbreaks come from organic farms where manure, not chemical fertilizers are used. And most of the rest come from the processing plants (Why would you want some assembly line worker cutting up your salad greens & putting it in a bag for you? How lazy can you be?) Virtually none of the illness originates on the farm itself. BTW- 90% of food borne illness originates in the kitchen. Our food supply is very safe.


Now that we have DNA typing, we find that virtually all of those E.coli "contaminated" water sources got that way from natural sources- like birds droppings, not human or ag sources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 03:40 AM
 
Location: somewhere flat
1,375 posts, read 1,209,761 times
Reputation: 4104
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Let me correct the KoolAid you've swallowed:


"Nobody need meat"-- superficially true, but one can stay healthier on an all meat diet more easily than on an all vegan diet. Vegans can only get by because they take advantage of long range shipping of food (I thought that was supposed to unsustainable & bad for the environment?) I could go into a detailed account of human anatomy, physiology and evolution to show you why we are basically carnivores with ability to use plants for some nutrition. Our species developed large brains BECAUSE we were carnivorous. Ever see a cave painting of a kale plant?


RE- sustainability-- as long as we can grow corn & soy for feed, we can keep on producing beef, pork, poultry, lamb, goat etc for food. Pre-Colombian NA had vast expanses of grassland grazed by bison. We've replaced natural grass with another grass (corn) and the bison with their close relative- cattle. Same dif if you diagram the situation. (Disclaimer- I'd prefer to see a return to prairie and grass-fed cattle like we did prior to the spread of feed lots in the mid-6os.) Feedlot meat isn't any better or worse than pastured meat-- it's cheaper.


RE- water contamination-- not with proper handling of manure in the feedlots; not a problem at all with pastured animals. Is there a difference between natural bison pies vs cow pies? (Actually, there is- bison carry Brucellosis; cattle rarely do.) E.coli isn't generally a pathogen, although there are some rare pathogenic strains. How many people drink untreated run-off from streams, rivers or lakes? Private & municipal wells are deep enough that they get naturally filtered and the water is clean. This just isn't a problem as you've stated it.


You might also check the data on food borne illness -- the vast majority of outbreaks come from organic farms where manure, not chemical fertilizers are used. And most of the rest come from the processing plants (Why would you want some assembly line worker cutting up your salad greens & putting it in a bag for you? How lazy can you be?) Virtually none of the illness originates on the farm itself. BTW- 90% of food borne illness originates in the kitchen. Our food supply is very safe.


Now that we have DNA typing, we find that virtually all of those E.coli "contaminated" water sources got that way from natural sources- like birds droppings, not human or ag sources.


All farming is dangerous to the environment.

If people did not eat meat, or even so much meat, "handling manure in feed lots" - which is pretty disgusting when you thing about it, just would not happen.

Some relatives of mine had a small farm. I saw the slaughter of a hog. It was so brutal, and disgusting, and the smell of it was something indescribable.
There was so much blood, and feces. I actually remember the betrayed and anguished face of the pig.

I was 9. I never ate any pork products after that.

Most rational people who care about ethical living, a sustainable food source, and green living, avoid meat and dairy as much as possible.
If anyone doesn't see the connection, I do not think that they are "Green" in anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2018, 08:10 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,031,909 times
Reputation: 5940
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoulJourn View Post

. pretty disgusting when you thing about it, just would not happen.

.

No, it's pretty disgusting when YOU think about it. You've been indoctrinated to think a natural life process is disgusting. Dogs, for instance, regularly investigate the end without the teeth (much safer) to ID who they're dealing with. Did you ever see a dog turn up its nose in disgust? If you read the accounts of encounters with "wild boys raised by wolves" (why is it always in France that they found these kids?) from the 19th century, they sniffed feces (and everything else) presented to them with curiosity, not disgust.


I've done (and still do) my share of shoveling manure every day. I don't see something disgusting. I see a rich source of nitrogen, minerals and fiber to be recycled to keep soil healthy.


The rest of your post goes to further confirm that your attitude about issues concerning the environment are strongly colored by emotion, not facts. In other post on this forum I've said that the hearts of TreeHuggers are in the right place, but their emotional approach to problems & solutions is misguided and often counter-productive.


It would be nice if you all could re-direct your energy & enthusiasm about the environment to scientifically correct, beneficial actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top