Eating Locally vs Global Warming

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Lately, there's much hype about "eat locally" so as to reduce the carbon footprint of the cost of transportation of foodstuffs to your door.

That is all well-and-good, and if you get to know your local food producers, you can often learn what they put INTO that food, be it animal or vegetable or mineral (you eat salt, don't you? what about calcium carbonate?  That's basically marble rock, ground up fine...) 

But, the cost of CO2 in the transportation issue is roughly 2% of the total greenhouse gas footprint for most things.

Thus, you'd have to switch ALL your foods to local, to make much of a useful dent.

Still, it's a start.

That being said, on NPR Science Friday today, they spoke of a new study.  Linky-poo

Paragraph 1:

When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, what you eat may be more important than where that food comes from, a new study finds. Writing in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers report that replacing the calories from red meat and dairy products in one day's worth of your diet with calories from chicken, fish, or vegetables could have the same impact on greenhouse gas emissions as shifting to an entirely locally-grown diet.

So.

Basically, you can achieve the SAME RESULT as eating locally (and often more expensive, even though it shouldn't be) by simply avoiding Beef and Dairy for ONE DAY'S worth of meals a week.

Say on Friday, you could go Beef-less and Dairy-less.  Eat fish, chicken, more veggies, etc.

And you'd have the SAME reduction of greenhouse gases as eating ALL your food from strictly local producers.

Interesting.

Why, you ask?

Simple:  Cow farts.

No, really!  Car farts and cow burps, too, emit methane, which is--what--20 or 200 times (something) more "greenhouse-y" than CO2 is.

Couple that cows produce methane by fermenting celulose in their stomachs with the methane emitted by the solid "exhaust", and you get WAY more environmental impact from cows than from chickens or fish. 

This means, you could have TWICE the beneficial impact (of local food), if you skipped TWO days!

Or, if you combined the two strategies-- even better.

Or, if by some miracle, you managed to eliminate beef/dairy completely.....? 

No, that's just gone too far into meddling, methinks. 

(as for me:  I would sorely miss my cheeses, for example.  And, because of STUPID USDA regulations, I cannot buy local cheese that is not ruined by pasteurization.   To get raw cheese, I must purchase imports.  Stupid government....)

[Griffin NoName]

Sounds to me like global warming has been caused by introduction of cattle farming aons ago and has nothing to do with pirates or anything else.

[Aggie]

Or, if by some miracle, you managed to eliminate beef/dairy completely.....? 

No, that's just gone too far into meddling, methinks. 

We are moving in that direction; we eat very little dairy and are cutting back on beef*. 

The main motivator is for health - I am starting to refuse to buy non-organic beef and haven't bought much non-organic dairy (groceries) for a while now - and the actual reason is that organic beef (meats in general) and dairy products tend to be very expensive.  The dairy products that we do buy are either semi-reasonable in price (yogurt) or last a long time in our house (butter - ABSOLUTELY MUST BE ORGANIC! and cheese - we like it but don't cook with it much). 

Taste is also a major factor in regards to meat - I just don't think most of the factory farmed meat I buy has any flavour (and usually smells bad to boot), so why waste money on it? I grew up on 'bush meat' - aside from the game, the cattle in my area were always grazed in the mountains during the spring/summer/fall, not stuck in a pen full of shit.  We've bought good free-range lamb and chicken from small farmers in the past, but can't buy enough beef at once to make this economical in most cases.

OTOH, I have been eating way more legumes and am probably giving the cows a run for their methane-producing money. 

Any idea if there's a significant difference in gastrointestinal methane production between grass-fed cows and feedlot cows?  A pastured cow would make almost no CH₄ from its solid 'exhaust' because it is spread evenly on the fields and decomposes aerobically, instead of fermenting in lagoons. 

Ironically, about the only thing produced within 100 km of here is beef.  But I'd gladly give up meat a couple days a week to justify flying in the tropical fruit I eat.


It's also worth noting that beef is extremely water-wasteful to produce.  Chicken and potatoes are tremendously more efficient than other meats and grains/starches (although I'll wager that there are even better starch producers per unit of water, like cassava perhaps).  Chickens are efficient at turning feed into meat too...  I've heard that it's somewhere around 2 lb feed = 1 lb live weight gain, as opposed to a 6:1 ratio for feedlot beef.


*I ate beef probably 4 days this week, but it was a bit here, a bit there, and the total amount was probably equal to an average size steak.  Organic stuff, bought at 40% off, because I won't pay full price.  I will also buy non-organic bison once in a while because it's much tastier and quite a bit leaner. Can't do whole milk.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is a movement to convert manure in methane for the use in farms. If there were a properly regulated seal (as with organic food) it might make sense.

I'm not prepared to skip red meat entirely yet but nowadays we eat mostly chicken (just for cost).

I have the feeling I'm saving far more having my AC unit off.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I have the feeling I'm saving far more having my AC unit off.

As far as the global thing goes--- not really.

A/C is pretty efficent use of electricity, as such things go.

The TOTAL cost of food must needs consider everything:  from the seed production, to the planting costs (with oill-fed machines doing the planting)  to the watering (where/how does the water come from-- is it fossil? Is it processed with still more petroleum energy?) to the havrvesting.

Then, if it's meat-- that food-crop goes to feed the animal (transportation costs again).  The animal itself needs water, too, shelter, etc, etc, etc.

Interestingly enough, if a cow is grown on grass (free range) then it produces MORE methane per ton of meat than if fed on grains.  Celulosic diets (grasses) is not as efficient an energy source, and certainly less efficient protein-builder.   And a cow is basically a protein factory.

So.  A free-range cow produces more manure and more methane than a feedlot cow.  And a feedlot cow's manure can be harvested much easier, and the methane extracted (which more and more is happening, with oil skyrocketing) and burned for heat.

Burning the methane reduces it to water and CO2, but that is considered superior to releasing it.

Another problem with grass-fed cows, is that harvesting the manure is much more problematic-- it's spread all over, and can take more energy to gather (in oil-fed machines) than it produces.

But the flesh sure tastes better.... 

_____________

Re: human methane production vs bovine methane production.

I've not seen actual numbers, but the basic goal is similar, yet different.

With a human, protein production is not the chief goal of eating (in an adult, obviously) but with a cow, it is.

And, using the simple, but effective 10-to-1 model of biology and energy conversion*.   Thus, if a person eats a given quantity of plant matter (beans, say) to meet a given energy need, and part of that is methane release.

But, if the human eats a cow instead, there is less methane released by the human, for eating the cow as opposed to the plant.

But, it's a 10-to-1.  You do not consume ALL of the cow-- just part of it.  Yet, all of the cow is required to make 1 cow.  And using the 10-to-1 ratio, the cow would produce 10 times as much methane for a given energy gain, than a human eating the plants directly, for a given net energy target of the human.

In reality, I suspect that the number differences are much higher:  a typical cow is many times as heavy as a typical human.

True: it's not a one-to-one relationship (i.e. one cow to one human, and the rest thrown out) but the human only eats a fraction of the cow's mass-- even as a group, the humans only eat a fraction of the actual cow, and the rest is waste of some sort or other.

So, for a given quantity of "make more human body parts" a human eating plants directly is at least 10 times more efficient than a human eating a cow who ate plants.

Ain't science fun?


<sub>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* that is, at each remove from actual sunshine, there is pretty closely, a 10-to-1 loss of energy availability.   That is, let us say that 10,000 "units" of sunshine falls onto a plant.  The plant utilizes roughly 1,000 units to create plant-mass.

The plant is eaten by an animal.  The animal has available, from the plant, 100 units of energy by eating that plant.

Let's say that the animal is eaten by another animal.  The new animal has available 10 units of energy by eating the animal.</sub>

[Aggie]

So.  A free-range cow produces more manure and more methane than a feedlot cow.  And a feedlot cow's manure can be harvested much easier, and the methane extracted (which more and more is happening, with oil skyrocketing) and burned for heat.

Burning the methane reduces it to water and CO2, but that is considered superior to releasing it.

Another problem with grass-fed cows, is that harvesting the manure is much more problematic-- it's spread all over, and can take more energy to gather (in oil-fed machines) than it produces.

But the flesh sure tastes better.... 

One thing you are leaving out - the petrochemical energy to make the fertilizers for the grain to feed the cow.  Grass-fed beef is self-fertilizing, especially if you graze chickens behind it, like Polyface farms does:  http://www.polyfacefarms.com/  (chicken manure is much higher nitrogen than cow poop).

Although it's coming into practice, it's still far from standard to make CH₄ from cattle manure and the lagoons nearly always end up leaking & leaching into the local groundwater; even worse is the runoff from the overapplication of the original fertilizers in the corn field (aside from gross damage, it goes to the ocean, causes algae blooms big enough to deplete the oxygen when they die and decay, and then it's anaerobic decomposition for the rest = more CH₄).

And I think it's worth emphasizing that open-field manure does not make any additional CH₄; it's fairly carbon-neutral (came from grass grown without petrochemical aid, rots back releasing the originally captured CO₂ with aerobic decomposition).

So it's my opinion (not fact!) that grazed cattle will come out ahead in the carbon balance, but I will admit that I'm starting to make my choices based on my health moreso than the planet's; however, I think these tend to go hand-in-hand much of the time.

[Griffin NoName]

I'm starting to make my choices based on my health moreso than the planet's; however, I think these tend to go hand-in-hand much of the time.

When can we see the pics of of your body undergoing muck-spreading?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I have the feeling I'm saving far more having my AC unit off.

As far as the global thing goes--- not really.

A/C is pretty efficent use of electricity, as such things go.

Depending where you read, coal power can release 1Kg of CO2 per KW. Turning my AC on takes 750KW monthly so we are talking .75 tons a month of CO2 or 9 tons of CO2/yr.

What are the equivalent numbers per kg of red meat?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

So it's my opinion (not fact!) that grazed cattle will come out ahead in the carbon balance, but I will admit that I'm starting to make my choices based on my health moreso than the planet's; however, I think these tend to go hand-in-hand much of the time.

You raise some valid concerns, but I'm going by what the study concluded-- and they concluded that even WITH petrochemical fertilizers on the crops, that grass-fed cows produce more methane into the atmosphere than feedlot cows.

This was assuming that none of the manure-methane was collected, actually.  It's that much difference between cow-protein from corn/grain versus cow-protein from grass.   Celulosic feedstocks are very inefficient.  Something larger than 10-to-1 I seem to recall.

Think of it this way:  grasses are entirely cellulose.  To get at the basic sugars, the cellulose must be broken down with enzyme activity-- something no mammal has evolved to do directly.  It takes bacterial action (in th cow's stomachs), which is very inefficient-- most if the incoming cellulose is wasted in the process.  But, grass is abundant by and large-- plenty and to spare.

Corn/grains, on the other hand, already contain sugars and many contain proteins as well.  Some cellulose, but not a large amount.   The sugars can often be utilized directly, or with just one breakdown step by the cow's own enzymes.  Same for the proteins.   Thus, most of the grain-sugars and grain-proteins are absorbed immediately, and go to making of more "cow".

So, it's at least 10 times more grass needed than a given quantity of corn, and corn per ton consumed produces much, much less methane than grass per ton consumed.

And grass produces much more manure per ton of "cow" produced, too.

Combine the double effects:  more methane per ton of grass plus more tonnage of grass required to achieve a given tonnage of cow translates to much higher impact with grass-fed cows than with grain fed cows.

This is assuming that NONE of the methane produced from the manure is harvested, but allowed to release into the atmosphere.

..................

That being said, this is only ONE aspect of the Total Picture, obviously.

You point out that grass-fed cows automatically deposit their manure over a very wide range, and thus the local impact is lower, even of the total-earth impact is higher.

And for grass-fed, the deposition of manure, and the subsequent release of the methane is far more gradual, and over a longer time-frame (it takes longer to fatten up cows on grass, than on grains).

And, currently, feedlots do not handle the manure issue well if at all-- creating a very nasty local "hot spot" of high methane-- not to mention a high concentration of manure that WILL have to be dealt with.


.....................

Which does point out another potential benefit of feedlots:  that concentration of both the cows and of the waste.

If concentrated, it lends itself to a possible solution that would be impossible with grass fed cows.  Containment and harvesting of the methane.   Feedlots could conceivably be enclosed, and the atmosphere scrubbed of methane.  The manure could be sent to a digester, with the same goal.   This has been done n university studies.

It would be nearly impossible to enclose a grassland, to trap the cow's gaseous emissions-- you'd need acres for just a smallish heard.  And, you'd loose the benefits of grass-feed:  cheap and plentiful.

......................

The best solution, I suppose, is to migrate to another meat animal completely. 

[anthrobabe]

Probably the best solution will be a combination of all of your good thoughts.

some methane harvest for fuel in areas where feasable, others not.
free range where feasable, lot where not.
and etc

reducing the overall global footprint is not going to be a one bandaid fix--- it will take a variety of ways and means.

going back to a vegetarian based diet is one of the greatest steps we can all take-- but again with care,
a great example-- pesticide or no pesticide-- so often pesticides are used for asthetic purposes-- we want our cabbages to be large, glossy green and free from even superficial tiny holes--- so the crop is heavily sprayed, but my grandmother grew cabbage and we cut out the 'ugly' bits and the rest was delicious! So it's a matter of getting past this ideal of superficial beauty. Yes some pests are devestating and must be treated--- but I'd rather have ugly, fragile tomatos that taste like tomatos than what we get nowdays at the local 'meglo-mart'.

I am trying to find the link to the amount of water necessary to bring a pound of meat to a table vs a pound of vegetable protein-- can't find it but it is something like 10 to 1 with the lesser amout to the vegetable protein.

so yes start eating more beans, grains (not white refined people), and legumes but in a sensible manner, walk a bit more (esp if you live in town), leave the A/C off until it is really hot (and you need it), turn off lights when you leave a room, turn the heat down in the winter-- this is why snuggling is so important!, practice effective birth control(and make it available!)--it's alright to procreate but my gawd the vagina ain't a clown car people, remember that we were not really created and no one actually gave us dominion over anything(pets, wives, nature, etc) and that this planet is a symbiotic organism and we are screwing it up and we have to stop screwing with her.

some feed lots  actually now taking the chicken litter (poop mainly undigested vegetable material) and feeding it to beef cattle--- gross but interesting idea-- if one eats meat (note to self- it's time to be vegetarian again  ) anyway--- . Also blood and plate waste(what the busman scrapes into that tub when you leave the table) is fed to cows and other meat animals

Oh and save the Gorillas, Orangutans, Bonobo and Chimpanzee--- anthrobabe said so 

just my 2 cents

[Aggie]

You raise some valid concerns, but I'm going by what the study concluded-- and they concluded that even WITH petrochemical fertilizers on the crops, that grass-fed cows produce more methane into the atmosphere than feedlot cows.
......................

The best solution, I suppose, is to migrate to another meat animal completely. 

U haz study?  I is mollified.
(actually, wouldn't mind seeing said study - it's always interesting to see the assumptions & starting conditions involved - yay for 'method' in the scientific method!)

Really, considering the whole picture (personal health, environmental impact), eating beef is less and less attractive.  But chicken production conditions totally disgust me, and I've been starting to hear that "free range" may be effectively a BS label - it means that chickens have access to an outdoor area, but doesn't mean they actually use it - they can still be raised en mass in a chicken barn and may never actually choose to step outside.

Can't stand the piggy smell of most pork (which I suspect is due to the conditions they are intensively farmed in) - I enjoy it otherwise but we eat it only a couple of times a month.

We are eating more fish, but I am getting just as suspicious / disappointed with intensively-farmed fish as I am with intensively-farmed meat - really, they are starting to raise salmon on grain-based feed.  No wonder there's no flavour to it - and the impacts to the marine environment are becoming apparent.   With wild-caught fish there's worry about what fishing is doing to the wild populations (especially in regards to by-catch and damage to the ocean floor), and moreso the spectre of bioconcentration of contaminants.  The only (partial) solution is to vary the species / location of fish consumed to keep from getting too much of any contaminant, and to eat smaller / shorter lived species lower on the food chain to minimize exposure (am very reluctant to eat apex predators, even though they are quite tasty). My current favorite fish is saury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_saury) which I am glad to see feeds mostly on zooplankton and is highly migratory - it's also nice and oily (fish oil is good, m'kay?) and taste good just grilled plain.
 
No wonder I'm slowly going veggie primarily for reasons of taste & contaminant-avoidance.

And for grass-fed, the deposition of manure, and the subsequent release of the methane is far more gradual, and over a longer time-frame (it takes longer to fatten up cows on grass, than on grains). 

About 3 years, as opposed to fourteen to sixteen months.  Does the study compare methane production from a life-cycle perspective or a per unit of time perspective? 

Also, given the higher proportion of fat (marbling) in grain-fed cattle, it'd be interesting to look at methane per unit of protein in range-grazed vs. confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) beef, as opposed to strictly per-animal.  Now that McD's doesn't deep-fry in tallow, there's a lot of excess fat on a beef that must be diverted into processed foods, or (surprise surprise) directly back into cattle feed.  There are some indications that the 'bad fats' associated with red meat may have a lot to do with feeding red-meat-fat back to the animals, and that 100% vegetarian beef might not have the same fat profile - contrast this with seal oil which is gaining popularity as a source of long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids, because it is basically just bioconcentrated fish oils (also being pushed on the alternative health market because it's a cheap byproduct of the sealing industry ).

Of course, aside from 'protein efficiency', this is more to do with health than global warming.  And legumes trump all in regards to global warming - they fix their own nitrogen as well as carbon (and despite the bean jokes, I think a well-tuned legume eater doesn't have the issues that an occasional consumer does - I have gas issues on anything and eating more beans actually seems to help in terms of toxicity* if not overall volume, and human flatulence may not be high in methane anyways:

Nitrogen is the primary gas released. Carbon dioxide is often present, especially in persons who drink carbonated beverages in quantity. Methane and hydrogen, lesser components, are flammable, and so flatus can be ignited. Not all humans produce flatus that contains methane. For example, in one study of the feces of nine adults, only five of the samples contained archaea capable of producing methane.[3] Similar results are found in samples of gas obtained from within the rectum.

----

The major components of the flatus (which are odorless) by percentage are:[4]

    * Nitrogen - 20% - 90%
    * Hydrogen - 0% - 50%
    * Carbon Dioxide - 10% - 30%
    * Oxygen - 0% - 10%
    * Methane - 0% - 10%

_{*literal toxicity - I can do 110 ppm H2S, a level considered immediately dangerous to life and health.  I've checked with a gas monitor.} 

going back to a vegetarian based diet is one of the greatest steps we can all take-- but again with care,
a great example-- pesticide or no pesticide-- so often pesticides are used for asthetic purposes-- we want our cabbages to be large, glossy green and free from even superficial tiny holes--- so the crop is heavily sprayed, but my grandmother grew cabbage and we cut out the 'ugly' bits and the rest was delicious! So it's a matter of getting past this ideal of superficial beauty. Yes some pests are devestating and must be treated--- but I'd rather have ugly, fragile tomatos that taste like tomatos than what we get nowdays at the local 'meglo-mart'.

There are indications that organic produce may actually be more resistant to pests and to degradation during shipping and storage, simply because it's not being fertilized strictly with N/P/K and coddled from pests.  Most of the health-giving (to humans) compounds in plants are precisely what the plant uses to defend itself from insect predators, and there's definitely a host of studies out there that have determined that plants will increase these natural defenses when exposed to damage or insect predation.  No pests = no need to produce, and more simple inorganic fertilizer = faster growth rates which may not be fully supported by the micronutrients necessary to promote healthy growth.  Picture a human being fed solely on refined protein, fat & carbohydrates and some added vitamins, kept in a sterile environment, and washed with antibacterial soap - actually, this generation of children probably DOES contain a goodly number of examples.  Not healthy.

[anthrobabe]

Aggie good point
sterilized children= not good at all.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I think that the chief lesson to be learned from all this, is reduce the meat intake across the board.

Even if it's factory-veggies, they are typically more healthy than any meat source.

And fishes are becoming more problematic, too:  the wild-caught ones are top-predators.  That means that they have concentrated amounts of toxic metals, like lead and mercury.   (metals tend to concentrate with each step in the food-chain.  Top wild-caught fishes are at typically 3 or 4 removes from the base-level plankton, thus concentrating metals 4 or 5 times what would be in the water itself.)

So. 

Limit your beef to 1 or 2 times a week.   Limit all meats to 3 to 5 times a week.   Vary your diet, vary your sources (to eliminate potential contaminations to 1 or 2 meals in a weekly cycle).

Try to eat locally, if possible to reduce the transportation impact.

Try for organic, if available. 

In doing so, when you DO eat beef, you can easily "afford" the better-tasting grass-cows as opposed to the grain-fed varieties (if available, again).   Your TOTAL impact will be so much lower than most, that an occasional burger or steak will not affect the total picture at all.  In fact, your contribution is easily lost in the statistical noise of a varied and active planet full of humans.

At least, you'll be more healthy, and your food will taste more Interesting. 

As for the original study, the link to the original article cites it, I think-- post #1.

[Darlica]

Re: human methane production vs bovine methane production.

*snippety snipp*

Not all humans can produce methane, we all produce gas but most of us produces a non flammable combination , it has to do with the kind of bacteria in our stomachs. Cows on the other hand have plenty of methane emitting bacteria in one of their four stomachs, I can't remember which though. 

[Griffin NoName]

Not all humans can produce methane, we all produce gas but most of us produces a non flammable combination , it has to do with the kind of bacteria in our stomachs.

Take the Methane Test today !!!