Cows and Climate Change -- Time To Get Real

[dhanson865]

This is the second time you're throwing that number out.

You're going to have to site your source now, because not even Google wants to have anything to do with your 3%. The general FCR range for cattle, depending on how you do it, is 2.5 to 7.

3% would mean an FCR of 33.

Did you not see greenhouse20gas20emissions20from20common20proteins20and20vegetables20-jpe.165697 on page 1 of this thread?

If Tomatos and Lentils are 1, and Beef is 27, there is 27 to 1 right there. But you see that isn't just feed, that is feed + fuels/electricity + materials other than feed and fuel used to raise the cattle from birth to market.

OK lets look for other sources. You say cattle are 2.5 to 7. Wikipedia says 5 to 20.

Feed conversion ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For cattle, a FCR range from less than 5 to more than 20 kg feed dry matter per kg gain may be encountered per National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. National Academy Press. 232 pp.

Driftless Region Beef Conference 2013
Beef Cattle Feed Efficiency
Dan W. Shike, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
says typical range of feed conversion ratios is 4.5 -7.5

this one says 10.4 and gives a source.

Those freindly Canadians want you to think 6 but since others are quoting as high as 20 I'd wonder if that requires growth hormones or some other less desirable process. Maybe small farms don't go the super efficient route. Maybe Kobe Beef isn't efficient. Maybe the majority of the beef is closer to 6?

Hmm Optimizing Feedlot Feed Efficiency - Beef Cattle Research Council tells a different story hanging around 7.5 or so.

If you can get FCR to 2.5 for cattle you are doing something rather unusual compared to the average of the market.

2.5 sounds like pigs not cows.

 

[dhanson865]

This thread started as a discussion of eating meat (cows) and climate change.
Continuing along that line of thought. Industrial animal agriculture has a greater climate change impact than all transportation, so yes, it is worth thinking about trying to do something about it. It is not a "tiny" part of the picture. It is greater that all transportation use of fossil fuels..

Quite a bit of the energy footprint of chickens/pigs/cows will be reduced in the years to come by using relatively local Solar PV and electric vehicles instead of various distributed electric sources (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, solar) and diesel/gas for the distribution/support vehicles (tractors, staff transportation, animal transportation, and so on)

I look forward to that because I can't see myself giving up meat. I'll totally admit that beef is inefficient and I'll avoid it to some extent (reducing my consumption but not eliminating it) but that's as far as I go.

I see the down sides so I don't buy as much of it. I'll adjust over time as the costs change.

 

[deonb]

Did you not see greenhouse20gas20emissions20from20common20proteins20and20vegetables20-jpe.165697 on page 1 of this thread?

That's not FCR. That's CO2 emitted per KG of consumed food, which isn't a particularly interesting metric. (CO2 from fossil fuels emitted during the making of the consumed foods would be very interesting, but this isn't that number).

If you can get FCR to 2.5 for cattle you are doing something rather unusual compared to the average of the market.

2.5 sounds like pigs not cows.

The 2.5 ratio is for the grain portion once they enter the feedyard. But I'll accept your 6 or even 7.5 overall number. It's a far cry from 33 (3%) though.

 

[Chris TX]

Until you consider all the negative effects that naturally come along for the ride.

Your B12 argument should also be able to answer why all the non-meat eating animals in the world that are not endogenous producers of B12 are 'natural.' Perhaps deer are naturally supposed to eat human.

If you have four stomachs, you don't need much B12 and you might be able to produce a small amount for yourself with those stomachs. In the meantime, those of us humans with one highly acidic stomach need to produce a bunch of B12 in our guts by eating meat. Why should I have to explain this stuff when the curious readers can just Google it for themselves? Do I need to list all the science journals that have this information? World Book Encyclopedia?

And the negative effects of eating meat are revealed when consumption in moderation is not followed.

 

[jgs]

Perhaps deer are naturally supposed to eat human.

I find all these arguments about what humans are, or are not "supposed" to be eating a bit rich, given the existence of well over a billion traditional vegetarians whose foodways have not generally included high-tech supplementation. However, since you bring up deer... Researchers Document Deer Eating Birds

 

[SageBrush]

If you have four stomachs, you don't need much B12 and you might be able to produce a small amount for yourself with those stomachs. In the meantime, those of us humans with one highly acidic stomach need to produce a bunch of B12 in our guts by eating meat.

That is my point -- these animals that you probably classify as herbivores do not have biologic mechanisms we know of to definitely avoid B12 deficiency.

So for you to avoid hypocrisy -- or simply poor reasoning -- you cannot infer that humans are "natural" meat eaters and deer are "natural" herbivores. At best you might infer that a range of supplementation occurs depending on needs and sources.

You and I have choices; "natural" is a crock rationalization.

That said, as an evolutionary biology hobbyist I do find it intriguing to consider why the animal kingdom has not solved the B12 requirement better, given the vitamin's central role in nucleic acid metabolism.

 

[mspohr]

That is my point -- these animals that you probably classify as herbivores do not have biologic mechanisms we know of to definitely avoid B12 deficiency.

So for you to avoid hypocrisy -- or simply poor reasoning -- you cannot infer that humans are "natural" meat eaters and deer are "natural" herbivores. At best you might infer that a range of supplementation occurs depending on needs and sources.

You and I have choices; "natural" is a crock rationalization.

That said, as an evolutionary biology hobbyist I do find it intriguing to consider why the animal kingdom has not solved the B12 requirement better, given the vitamin's central role in nucleic acid metabolism.

Humans have probably been able to get enough B12 from exogenous sources so no need for endogenous production. Vitamin C is a similar situation.

 

[Topher]

Don't forget one of the largest sources of methane in the world is wetlands.

Nonsense. One of the largest locations for methane production might be wetlands. The methane comes from what is put into the wetlands. So the question becomes what are you going to do with that material? And there are some solutions, but it doesn't pay to mis-characterize the problem.

That said, there are any number of sources of greenhouse gases which are not human generated, and about which we very well might not be able to do anything. But, those things used to be in balance with the sinks for greenhouse gases in the system, when you add human generated to the total, things get out of balance, and that is the problem. It is likely that human generated sources are the easiest to fix, by humans, but not necessarily. This should be studied carefully. Filling in wetlands, for example, might (if done correctly) reduce the methane produced there, but it will also crash the entire food cycle of the planet. So you could be cool, and breathe fresh air, as you starve to death.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

Humans have probably been able to get enough B12 from exogenous sources so no need for endogenous production.

From a biological and genetic viewpoint humans differ very little from other mammals -- the 'carnivore' and 'omnivore' and 'herbivore' types. They all take a somewhat casual attitude towards B12, which as I mentioned earlier is surprising since B12 is an important vitamin.

If humans have been able to get adequate Vit B12 from exogenous sources, so have the rest of the animal kingdom. I don't disagree with you by the way, I'm just pointing out that humans are not a special biochemical snowflake in the animal kingdom.

 

[mspohr]

From a biological and genetic viewpoint humans differ very little from other mammals -- the 'carnivore' and 'omnivore' and 'herbivore' types. They all take a somewhat casual attitude towards B12, which as I mentioned earlier is surprising since B12 is an important vitamin.

If humans have been able to get adequate Vit B12 from exogenous sources, so have the rest of the animal kingdom. I don't disagree with you by the way, I'm just pointing out that humans are not a special biochemical snowflake in the animal kingdom.

Vitamin C seems to be a special case for humans who have lost the ability to synthesize it whereas most other mammals (except primates and guinea pigs) have retained the ability to make their own.

 

[SageBrush]

There just does not seem to be much evolutionary pressure on organisms to develop, or even conserve, endogenous Vitamin production. This is why the argument that humans are natural carnivores because they lack Vit B12 machinery is so specious.

 

[SageBrush]

This study published as a letter in Nature identifies Vit B12 producing bacteria in the gut of healthy Tamil East Indians.
Perhaps Vit B12 Deficiency in humans is partly attributable to 'modern,' 'western' diet and behaviors.

 

[Skotty]

Since there have been a number of charts and claims about GHG percentages, I decided to go do a little more snooping around to see how the breakdown looks from different sources. I had to generalize a bit as not everyone categorizes the same, but here is roughly what I found:

One rather interesting takeaway form this is to see the difference between EU/USA and Global. There has been the occasional claim that agriculture is more significant than the transportation sector. Based on these sources, they are actually pretty close to equal on the global scale, though agriculture holds a narrow lead. However, it would seem that if you focus on industrialized parts of the world, the picture changes dramatically to where transportation is 2x to 3x more significant than agriculture. That should be taken into consideration when discussing policy on a regional level.

The Penn State source also had this to say, which I thought was worth sharing:

This picture of the energy sector is overly simplistic. As the accompanying diagram in Figure 4.2 demonstrates, the relationships among energy production, energy storage and distribution, energy marketing, and energy demand and consumption are extremely complex. Thus, trying to pin GHG emissions to any one component in this complex web is arbitrary. Indeed, calculating emissions from the energy sector is fraught with error because of this complexity. It is best to think not in terms of exact proportions of GHG emissions from any one activity or subsector, but in terms of which categories are the big players.

Since I had to screenshot my spreadsheet in order to include a table here making the links inaccessible, here they are again in order:

1. Title row -- N/A
2. Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions by Sector | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
4. Figure 1.3 - AR4 WGIII Chapter 1: Introduction
5. Introduction to the Energy Sector and Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions | GEOG 438W: Human Dimensions of Global Warming
6. Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7. Current and Projected GHG Emissions in Canada’s Energy Production Sector | Major Economies and Climate Change Research Group
8. Reducing emissions from transport - European Commission
9. Industry Sector Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA
10. US greenhouse gas emissions by sector (2010 data) and the corresponding federal authorities that could act to reduce the sector's emissions without congressional approval. : What now? : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group
11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions :: ChemViews Magazine :: ChemistryViews

 

[mspohr]

Since there have been a number of charts and claims about GHG percentages, I decided to go do a little more snooping around to see how the breakdown looks from different sources. I had to generalize a bit as not everyone categorizes the same, but here is roughly what I found:

View attachment 177176

One rather interesting takeaway form this is to see the difference between EU/USA and Global. There has been the occasional claim that agriculture is more significant than the transportation sector. Based on these sources, they are actually pretty close to equal on the global scale, though agriculture holds a narrow lead. However, it would seem that if you focus on industrialized parts of the world, the picture changes dramatically to where transportation is 2x to 3x more significant than agriculture. That should be taken into consideration when discussing policy on a regional level.

The Penn State source also had this to say, which I thought was worth sharing:



Since I had to screenshot my spreadsheet in order to include a table here making the links inaccessible, here they are again in order:

1. Title row -- N/A
2. Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions by Sector | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
4. Figure 1.3 - AR4 WGIII Chapter 1: Introduction
5. Introduction to the Energy Sector and Its Greenhouse Gas Emissions | GEOG 438W: Human Dimensions of Global Warming
6. Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7. Current and Projected GHG Emissions in Canada’s Energy Production Sector | Major Economies and Climate Change Research Group
8. Reducing emissions from transport - European Commission
9. Industry Sector Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA
10. US greenhouse gas emissions by sector (2010 data) and the corresponding federal authorities that could act to reduce the sector's emissions without congressional approval. : What now? : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group
11. Greenhouse Gas Emissions :: ChemViews Magazine :: ChemistryViews

Thanks for this extensive research.
So, are you going to stop eating cows?

 

[Skotty]

Thanks for this extensive research.
So, are you going to stop eating cows?

Not until I'm convinced it's a necessary step or someone comes up with an acceptable beef substitute (Tofu need not apply, it's resume has been reviewed and application subsequently rejected). Right now I'm still convinced our primary efforts should be on power production and transportation. However, I will support efforts to increase agriculture and ranching efficiency, reduce emissions, and improve the treatment of livestock.

 

[Chris TX]

Not until I'm convinced it's a necessary step or someone comes up with an acceptable beef substitute (Tofu need not apply, it's resume has been reviewed and application subsequently rejected). Right now I'm still convinced our primary efforts should be on power production and transportation. However, I will support efforts to increase agriculture and ranching efficiency, reduce emissions, and improve the treatment of livestock.

Agreed. I drive two electric cars, so I'm offsetting busloads of meat eaters. I'm going to sleep well after a nice, juicy steak. If this conversation turns to animals' feelings and/or souls, there's a special place where people can put their personal moral beliefs and solar panels have a zero percent efficiency there.

 

[mspohr]

Not until I'm convinced it's a necessary step or someone comes up with an acceptable beef substitute (Tofu need not apply, it's resume has been reviewed and application subsequently rejected). Right now I'm still convinced our primary efforts should be on power production and transportation. However, I will support efforts to increase agriculture and ranching efficiency, reduce emissions, and improve the treatment of livestock.

I believe you started this thread with this question:
Cows and Climate Change -- Time To Get Real
"When it comes to climate change, periodically the topic of cows comes up. Eat less meat. Cows are contributing to climate change. This argument has always bugged me, and it's time for a deeper dive into this topic to determine if cows are a problem, how big of a problem they are, and get real about possible solutions and the tradeoffs involved."

We now have 75 posts giving you information about your question and many (I believe) convincing arguments for eating less meat but you and unconvinced on the basis that no one has "come up with an acceptable beef substitute".

Are you really ready to "get real"?
Is your personal preference for beef more important than the climate damage caused by beef?
Have we wasted our time?
Did you come to this with an open mind or were you just looking for excuses to confirm your preexisting mind set?

 

[jgs]

convincing arguments for eating less meat

Your recent question was about stopping entirely though, which to my mind is qualitatively different from eating less meat.

 

[mspohr]

Your recent question was about stopping entirely though, which to my mind is qualitatively different from eating less meat.

Skotty asked the question, not me.

 

[jgs]

Skotty asked the question, not me.

I don't see where he asked about stopping eating meat, but I do see where you did. Anyway, I didn't intend to initiate a game of gotcha, just to point out that Skotty's initial question ("eat less meat", as you quoted) was different. This jumped out at me because I was thinking about the notable difference between the two just before you posted.