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.
I know greens have a big problem with cows, pigs, horses, goats and sheep and their methane gas adding to CO2. But then how do they figure to feed people?
I learned something very important living out west. There is all kinds of land that is not farmable, with row crops. Much of this land does not get enough rain to reliably grow crops. But it can very reliably grow grass for animals to feed, and so the land can provide food for people.
But lets say the nation was forced onto a vegetarian or vegan diet. I have doubts enough food could be grown to feed everyone.
Plus, if fossil fuels are eliminated, how are farmers going to grow food?
Agriculture is the process of turning petroleum into food. How many hours are put on the tractors each yr plowing, tilling, planting, cultivating, spreading herbicides and pesticides and then harvesting? How many hours are put on the tractor to tend cattle? No contest.
The fad of complaining about methane production by livestock can be debunked by any 5th grader who pays attention in science class: the carbon cycle does not alter the atm [co2]. Only adding co2 from sequestered sources (fossil fuels & inorganic carbonates in cement production) does.
The fact the religious fanatics (vegans) are apparently ignorant of or conveniently deny is that, while the 2nd Law of thermodynamics provides that there's a loss of energy (inefficiency) at each step of the Food Web, those animals at the top (carnivores) are even less efficient at extracting energy from plants than the herbivores they themselves eat. Net effect: more energy efficient overall for carnivores like H.sapiens to eat meat than plants. … While an acre of, say, corn produces more calories than an acre of pasture for beef it produces way less vitamins, minerals and no complete protein.
We won't even get into neural developmental problems with diets inadequate in lipids & cholesterol.
A vegan diet does little "for" the environment, relies heavily on transportation & refrigeration provided by fossil fuels and provides no apparent generalized health benefits....But then, it never pays to argue religion. Crunch away and wear out your molars prematurely if you prefer.
I mean, all the research is figuring that humans will need to eat a lot less meat to reach our emissions goals.
I can't speak specifically on the practicality of raising livestock in the rural West, but I imagine it would require a whole lot more water if we wanted to expand it, in addition to being less economical than the current widespread system of factory farming.
Water is always a problem in the west. The further west you go, the more irregular it gets. In the Lubbock area in Tx. They used to joke that all the rain came in one week. Their annual rainfall is average 18 in., but they have had as much as 40 in. And as little as 6 in.
They only reason they have been able to grow cotton in that area all these years is irrigation. But the agalala aquifer is seriously depleted, so more land is being used for grazing, and a lot less for row crops.
So, imho, getting rid of cows in favor of more crops is not a long term viable option.
The fad of complaining about methane production by livestock can be debunked by any 5th grader who pays attention in science class: the carbon cycle does not alter the atm [co2]. Only adding co2 from sequestered sources (fossil fuels & inorganic carbonates in cement production) does.
The explanation is simple: methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. 84 times as strong. One atom of methane is equal to 84 atoms of CO2.
Now if you could capture the biogas emissions of the cows and burn it, that would be much closer to carbon neutral.
I mean, all the research is figuring that humans will need to eat a lot less meat to reach our emissions goals.
.
Please read my post above concerning use of tractors to raise crops vs livestock. More crops will mean more emissions just to produce it, let alone transport it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae
The explanation is simple: methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. 84 times as strong. One atom of methane is equal to 84 atoms of CO2.
.
Methane is about 25x stronger than co2 as a ghg, but is present in only 1/1000th the concentration, and it is quickly oxidized to co2 anyways in our strongly oxidizing atmosphere. ….1000/25 = 40, so ch4 accounts for only 1/40th of the ghg effect as co2....co2, OTOH, accounts for only 40% of the total ghg effect, so ch4 accounts for only 1% (even if we use your "84x" figure, it's still only 3%)....H2o is weaker on a molar basis than co2, but is 52x more common in the atm and accounts for 60% of the total effect. (We won't get into the negative feed-back effect: more water vapor means more warming but also more clouds, which means less warming. There's a reason the planet has done so well for so long.)
Always do the arithmetic first before panicking.
BTW- it would do well to familiarize yourself with the concept of "extinction of absorption." Rising co2 levels above 450ppm will do almost nothing to increase their effect as a ghg.
Not all 'greens' are 'vegans'.....most I know, including myself are anti-vegan. We know that veganism is unhealthy, takes just as much fossil fuels and habitat destruction to produce, and we know that industrialized food in general, is a problem. Yes, methane from cows is a problem for sure, just like landfills and vehicle emissions. We know that cows eating grass, on rotated pasture can actually sequester carbon. A cow eating grass produces way more calories, uses less fossil fuels, than say a small plot of soybeans. So yeah.....feeding the world more vegetables will get us nowhere.
I mean, all the research is figuring that humans will need to eat a lot less meat to reach our emissions goals.
I can't speak specifically on the practicality of raising livestock in the rural West, but I imagine it would require a whole lot more water if we wanted to expand it, in addition to being less economical than the current widespread system of factory farming.
Then it is a slam dunk that we will NOT be reaching any "emissions goals".
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.
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.
