From: alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: You just dont get it...
Date: 26 Jan 1993 08:01:05 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sylvester.cc.utexas.edu


Rich Young:
>>> >Is the raising of cattle the largest contributor of methane to the
>>> >atmosphere, Russell?  By your own admission, all LIVESTOCK contribute
>>> >only 15 to 20 percent.  How much of that is from cattle?

I know this cant be 15 to 20 percent of the total methane emmission.
Perhaps 15% of the manmade emmissions.  Are the elephants, caribou, llamas
and zebra of the world counted in the LIVESTOCK figure?

Russell Lawrence:
>>> For the purpose of my argument, it doesn't make any difference.  My
>>> point, as you know, is that there are important ethical, medical,
>>> and environmental reasons for cutting back on the production and
>>> consumption of all livestock, not just cattle.  Methane emissions are
>>> just one of those reasons.

Rich:
>>And it seems that Alex Pace has addressed those concerns quite
>>well.  

Russ:
>For example, did you really agree with Alex Pace's claim that an 
>increase in world temperature of ten degrees or less would be a 
>good thing, because it would allegedly increase the number of 
>regions suitable for multiple crops?  And, did you agree with his 
>claim that grain would produce methane gas by rotting in the 
>fields if it weren't otherwise consumed by cattle?  

You can argue this all day russ but it wont make you right.  The
temperature of this planet has varied much more than 10 degrees in the past
and we're doing just fine.  Your hot air wont change the fact that rotting
releases methane.

Rich:
>>Especially when he points out that methane is less than
>>10% of the greenhouse problem.  If cattle produce 10% of the
>>world's methane, that's still only 1% of the greenhouse gases.

My point exactly Rich, I would even go as far to say that all livestock
produce 10% of manmade emissions and that natural release from marshes and
bogs, other non-domestic animal farts and deaths, decay of the forest, etc.
If man were responsible for half worldwide emissions then that would make
total livestock release one half of one percent.  Considering all of the
natural decay, I would estimate that man would be responsible for much less
than half of the total.

Rich:
>>Eliminating cattle to solve the greenhouse gas problem is like
>>trying to eliminate the federal deficit by taking over my bank
>>account.  (Actually, I only WISH that my bank account approached
>>1% of the federal deficit!)

I agree.

>...We'll need to 
>address the problems posed by greenhouse gases by doing whatever we 
>can do to reduce the problem as painlessly as possible.  

First of all there may not even be a problem, greenhouse may not even exist
and there is no reason to believe that if it does that it is harmful.
If you are really concerned about greenhouse gasses then you will focus you
attention to the overwealming (85%) culprit which is carbon dioxide.  You
could sign a petition to help get the new fuel efficiency standards passes,
use your protesting ability to resist the efforts of General Moters to have
this bill shelved.  You could have your car converted to burn natural gas,
propane or other alternative fuel.  You could even stop your personal
emmision of carbon dioxide by ceasing to breathe.

Russ:
>It's accurate to say that cardiovascular disease is the biggest
>killer in the US, since it accounted for roughly 366 deaths per 100,000
>in 1990.  And, it's also accurate to say that fat-laden meat and
>dairy diets are largely responsible for this problem.   

You assume that all meat is fat-laden and cannont be trimmed, this is a
false assumption.  It takes years of fatty diet to raise your risk of these
diseases and in the past people that eat meat might not have bothered to
trim it as closly as we do today.  It would be fair to say the vegans have
given some thought to what they are eating, in the past it would have been
fair to say that they gave much much more thought to it than the typical
omnivore.  But today, omnivores are also aware of what they are eating and
have adjusted their fat content accordingly.  When the statistics for my
generation are released, I'm confident the the difference in cancer rates
between vegans and omnivore will be very small.  

Russ:
>Right off hand, I'd say that there isn't too much that we can do 
>to reduce termite-methane-production, and even if there 

Actually, we could mandate that all wooden structures be torn down and
replaced by bricks.  This might actually stimulate the economy, at least in
the brick production sector.  We could replace all of the telephone poles
with underground fiber optics...Before you say that all of these trees
would be dying in the wild eventually anyway, they would live much longer
and not require replanting as often.

Russ:
>Vis-a-vis the world's food supply, which of the two categories could 
>we cut without causing famine?

You've been asking this silly question over and over and I dont see what
you're trying to prove.  We could probably all live on one meal a day but
we wouldnt want to.

Russ: 
>>> I suspect that the Masai cattle rely more on grass and less on 
>>> protein-and-fat-rich grains and I also suspect that Masai cattle 
>>> don't spend their lives in small pens where their manure could 
>>> accumulate in oxygen-free ponds.  Both of these would, I believe,
>>> reduce the level of their methane emissions.

Russ:
>Yes, I do mean this.  Were you under the impression that cattle 
>would produce a constant amount of methane, regardless of their 
>diets?  Or that cattle manure would produce a constant amount of 
>methane, whether it's deposited in sparse droppings (aerobic 
>decomposition) or concentrated sewage ponds (anaerobic 
>decomposition)?

You just dont get it do you?  The methane addressed by the article i
mentioned is released by flatulence i.e. farts.  As for the decay of their
droppings, you are surely aware of the nitrogen cycle in which micro
organisms feed on the manure and release natural nitrates and methane.  It
wouldnt matter if the manure was loaded into a high pressure nozzle and
sprayed evenly across an open field the oxygen in the air is not the
problem, dont you get it?  I'm not even so sure its a problem, I propose
that the manure helps to enrich the land and make it more fertile so that
it grows more native grasses and therefore less grain will need to be
imported.  In fact one of my best friend's father raises cattle.  He moves
his herd around his several fields rotating the growth of Hay.  For
example: if the cows are in field A, Field B is allowed to grow high
grasses.  These grasses are harvested and rolled into bales (large bundles)
and moved into field A for the cows to eat.  After about a year, the cows
are moved back to field B and the newly fertilized field A is allowed to
grow Hay.  To my knowledge this is the way it is always done in east texas.
For agricultural purposes, including almanacs, this Hay is considered a
grain but there is no way it could possibly be used for human consumption.
Perhaps this accounts for a good portion of the 70% of total grain Russ
mentions as going to domestic cattle production. 

Another interesting Hay story:
Texas has special laws taxing farm land at a much lower rate than
commercial land.  In Houston, there is a lot near downtown and exactly
ajacent to one of the largest shopping malls.  The appraised value of this
lot is approximately 1.5 million dollars making annual property taxes
somewhere in the range of $80,000 per/year.  However, the owners of the lot
allow it to grow high with grasses and peridically go out and have it mowed
and rolled into bales of Hay.  This classifies the land as a grain
producing agricultral lot and therefore annual taxes are in the
neighborhood of only $3000! 

alex the omnivore



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals