Undoubtedly, by this time in your life you have read a hundred times, or maybe a thousand, that beef production is a “major contributor” to climate change. It’s one of those narratives that has become a continuous drumbeat in the progressive press. Probably, you have had no reason to question it. Without thinking about it, you likely assume that this narrative is probably true.
But there is good reason to think critically about this one. Among the various scare stories used to take further control of your life, this is one of the more important. With the war against fossil fuels, there is at least the pretense that their use can be reduced or eliminated without major effect on your lifestyle — i.e., just replace the energy from fossil fuels with “cheap” electricity from wind and sun. There is no such pretense with the war on beef. The end game is unabashedly to reduce your standard of living by taking away one of the most important and best parts of your diet.
So is it true that beef production is a major contributor to climate change? If you give the subject a moment’s critical thought, you will quickly realize that the proposition is wrong. And you will come to that conclusion even if you fully accept that methane gas in the atmosphere is a major contributor to climate change, and that cattle raised to produce beef emit large amounts of methane gas. There is an obvious logical flaw in the reasoning that is used to accuse beef production of being a major contributor to climate change.
But before getting to that, let’s look at one of my lists of the usual fools (and power-hungry government functionaries) repeating the narrative:
- From the UN Environmental Program, August 2021: “Methane emissions are driving climate change. . . . A recent assessment from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition found that cutting farming-related methane emissions would be key in the battle against climate change. . . . Methane has accounted for roughly 30 per cent of global warming since pre-industrial times.”
- From PBS, March 6, 2022: “Livestock production—primarily cows—produce 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of that is in the form of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is a natural byproduct of how some livestock process food.”
- From the World Resources Institute, March 7, 2022: “How does beef production cause greenhouse gas emissions? . . . Cows and other ruminant animals (like goats and sheep) emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as they digest grasses and plants. This process is called “enteric fermentation,” and it’s the origin of cows’ burps. Methane is also emitted from manure.”
- From Scientific American, November 7, 2023: “Cattle play a colossal role in climate change: As the single largest agricultural source of methane, a potent planet-warming gas, the world’s 940 million cows spew nearly 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions — much of it through belches and droppings.”
There is an endless supply of similar pieces should you have the time to look for them.
But what are these propagandists leaving out? Here’s the missing piece: the methane emitted by cattle comes from the digestion of the grass that they have eaten. But what happens to the grass if the cattle don’t eat it? The answer is, it dies anyway, and decays in the soil by bacterial action. That decay also produces methane. Is the amount of methane produced in this natural process more or less than the amount produced from digestion by cattle? I can’t think of any reason why it would be much different. It might even be more. The propagandists make the error of counting the methane emissions from beef cattle as “human” emissions, but the methane emission from decay of the same grass in the soil as “natural” emissions.
Kevin Killough at Just the News on May 13 has a report on the latest research. The researchers were Dr. Vaughn Holder of Alltech and Dr. Betsey Boughton of Archbold. Granted, these are agribusiness people, so take that into account if you want. The two studied the question of whether methane emissions from a pasture were greater or less depending on whether beef cattle were present on the pasture or not. The research took place at Buck Island Ranch, a wetland pasture about 150 miles outside Miami, Florida. Key result:
The researchers found that 19%-30% of methane emissions were from the cattle, but the rest was from the wetland soils. If the cows are removed, their research shows, it actually increases the amount of methane the wetland ecosystems give off.
Here is part of the explanation provided to Killough by the researchers:
When cattle graze on land, the plants prioritize root growth over the plant matter above the surface. The deeper the roots, the more plants sequester carbon in the soil through the photosynthesis process. Grazing also removes grasses from a pasture, which reduces the dead plant matter that falls to the soil and decomposes, which also produces greenhouse gasses.
That makes perfect sense. And in fact, wasn’t the part about “plant matter that falls to the soil and decomposes” already completely obvious?
Don’t expect the anti-meat activists to back off any time soon. Their real goal is to make your life worse, as punishment for your sins.
There may be something to this. After eating a fine steak, I have a warm, contented feeling.
Beef has been around SOOO long that all prior emissions have long been sunk by grasses, reconsumed and reemitted hundreds of times. Beef is truly Net Zero on the emissions scale.
Get your fresh supply of victimhood right here. Unlimited supply! No wonder people here get paranoia.
Yeah, that’s the only problem people have with this industry.
So, essentially, you want to weaponize climate change to further your anti-farming agenda.
Quelle surprise.
You mean his anti-human agenda. The agenda that the number of humans must be reduced to 200 million or so, of which 198 million will work dawn to dusk to ensure the comfort of their betters (which he foolishly thinks he will be among). Oh, except for some of the more attractive ones – their work will be done largely at night.
Come on, don’t be a chicken, put up those solar panels on your roof and suck up the savings! Reap the benefits, FREE energy!
Those are the oddest cattle I’ve ever seen. But you never cease to amaze me with the gibberish you post that you think bolsters your arguments.
I just like to ruffle feathers
ie.. you like to say moronic things !!
Can someone explain where the orange egg came from? Do we need to invoke Demming?
Orange egg???
I didn’t see an orange egg.
But I didn’t see a “green” one either, so they’re probably safe to eat.
Hurry up little egg layers, do your duty and eat your fill😎
Feel free to stop eating. Every time you respirate, you’re releasing earth-destroying carbon pollution.
So you’re a vegan who doesn’t drive because he/she lives close to local stores (who presumably grow their own) so you can buy local vegetables, beans and pulses.
What a miserable life you must have.
I’m not a vegan / vegetarian.
But you are a hypocritical moron… who relies totally on all of modern society’s conveniences.
All brought to you by fossil fuels, modern food production, etc etc etc
By pointing out flaws in stuff we do? How frail is your ego that you can’t take any criticism about systems you are a part of?
Sorry, everythings fine. All happy sunshine land.
Poor luser.. You are not pointing out anything.
Just making mindless and pitiful yapping sounds…
… while benefitting totally from modern society and fossil fuels.
Sorry the fact that you are a hypocritical moron upsets you.
Maybe just try not to be one ??
Maybe in a “15 minute dream”, but not in reality.
His chicken egg farm picture is the equivalent of a 15-minute city for humans.
But those chooks only produce 1% of the methane per kg of meat as beef cattle.
Well, not those chooks, but meat chickens do.
Luser… why are you posting the chicken equivalent to a human 15-minute city.
Own goal.. several times over.
Don’t feed the Troll
________________________________________________________________
The methane from cattle is a byproduct of anaerobic respiration. The decay on open soil is not necessarily anaerobic and probably produces mostly CO2.
Please stop buying into the Global Warming Potential (GWP) nonsense. Methane is not 86 times more powerful at trapping heat than CO2. That is a lie.
Worse, is the fact that the population will now be eating Protein from plants and when digested producing CO2.
Not to mention the lack of B-12.
Long term (5 years?) B-12 deficiency can have metal effects.
Eat more chicken eggs?
Yep. Or cheese. Or drink more (real) milk.
They only non-animal source of B-12 for people that I’m aware of is brewers yeast.
(What was the source of the B-12 in a vegan’s supplement?)
None of the molecules in the atmosphere “trap” heat.
“Trap” is a four letter word that replaces “The Green House Effect” and all the things that it does and doesn’t do.
Direct arguments need to be made without muddying the water with side issues. The direct argument needs to be made that a warmer world is not a crisis. I’ve put the following up a few times before, I ought to post it every day:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Agreed. I heard it on good authority that it is impossible to “trap heat”.
Given the best thermal mug I’ve ever bought, given enough time, my coffee still got cold.
(Meant as a humorous comment but, still, “Nature”, natural laws, seeks an equilibrium. We’re fortunate to live on little blue that allows life to continue.)
The IPCC routinely ignores water vapor, which overlaps the spectrum for methane nearly completely.
The GWP numbers are based on concentration of
a Greenhouse Gas not its absorption spectrum:
CH4 1932 ppb; GWP 86
N20 337 ppb; GWP 273
CFC 4 ppb; GWP ~8000
Regardless, it is a bogus hypothesis.
It’s bogus for the fact that Climate Science absolutely
N E V E R says how much warming CH4 or N2O will
eventually cause. The reason for that is any future
warming from CH4 and N2O is so little as to be
essentially unmeasurable.
“any future warming from CH4 and N2O is so little as to be essentially unmeasurable.”
Same goes for CO2. !
WV/CH4 molecule ratio = 0.4/0.00018 = 222 more abundant than methane
Plus WV molecules (18 g/mol) are hundreds of times more abundant than methane (16 g/mol), which quickly disintegrates to CO2 (44 g/mol)
Short answer, no.
Move on, IPCC, nothing to propagandize here.
Methane makes up .00018 percent of the atmosphere. That’s a piddly amount, and it is easily overwhelmed by water vapor. But left out of this equation is the rational question: Is CO2 a control knob for warming? Are we warming at an alarming rate? Are major storms on the increase? Forest fires? Are our temperatures accurately measured? Check your assumptions … those who control this narrative are quick to make assertions that only stand up because of the AUL – agreed upon lies. (I am making up new acronyms as I go.) The answers to my questions above, using my own brain and relying on no authority figure (experts) are no, no, no, no, and no. There is nothing more than power of suggestion going on.
I am a 2nd generation vegetarian
cows eat grass
I eat cows
WV/CH4 molecule ratio = 0.4/0.00018 = 222 more abundant than methane
Plus WV molecules (18 g/mol) are hundreds of times more abundant than methane (16 g/mol), which quickly disintegrates to CO2 (44 g/mol)
Story tip – Flugwindkraft_enerkite – EnerKíte Flugwindkraftanlagen
Our airborne wind energy systems deliver twice the annual yield in comparison to a conventional wind turbine of the same rated power.
OMG you must be joking, they want to fly kites to harvest wind energy?! HA HA!
During the harvesting phase, the wing flies eight-shaped paths in the wind and, which produces large forces that pull ropes from the drums of the ground station. A generator converts this rotation of the drums into electricity (G). As soon as the wing reaches the rope’s end, it glides back to the initial height. The tethers are rewound with minimal energy input, and the cycle repeats again.
How does it take less energy to rewind than it does to unwind? Isn’t there energy expended moving the kite around in its path? How do they guarantee to get the kite up like that? I could get a kite up sometimes but it didn’t always stay up.
If the wind is strong enough to get it up to the end of the tether, the wind is still blowing, and a dive is a precarious operation in those conditions.
It is obvious that if the kite is gliding earthward, no tension on the tether makes it easier to rewind.
Unanswered questions abound.
Of course the best place to site these would be in large areas of open space, cleared of development to alleviate the NIMBY effect. Hmm. Like around an airport for example! No hazard to aviation there. Nothing to see here folks. Move along…
Is this better or worse than conventional wind farms? At least it should kill fewer birds.
Kites don’t kill whales. That, at least, is a bonus.
The kites will block a small amount of sunlight, cooling the ground. That at least is a plus.
It does not say what altitude the kites fly at. Could be an air traffic nightmare if a lot of them are flying.
Also not shows are stress metrics. The unanswered question is, what is the tether break strength? What happens if a kite gets loose?
This is an interesting science experiment, but is it something that could be implemented and deployed on a mass production basis?
What are the economics?
It comes down to, just because a thing can be done does not mean it is the right thing to do.
And notice also it takes lots of FF to do it!
Ah yes, further impoverish the already poor, reduce the living standards of the non-poor, and presto! Winters will cease getting dangerously short. Humanity can return to a vegan Eden like the good old preindustrial days. (Although I doubt the naked Adam & Eve would be happier in a cooler garden with a shorter growing season.)
Why not go a few steps farther? “Cull” the human population, as more rabid, misanthropic climatistas have suggested? Slash human numbers back to the pre-industrial total of about 700 million, circa 1750? Make ’em all go vegan. Let the buffalo roam.
Trouble with that scenario is there’d be just as many burping, farting, grass-eating, manure-emitting ruminants as there are now. Just like they were in pre-historic times — hundreds of millions of antelopes, bison, giraffes, and God-knows-what-all chewing their way through the wilderness, and contaminating the atmosphere with “greenhouse gases.”
Yikes!
TO save the planet we absolutely must go on safari and eliminate every stinking ruminant on the African continent. If people starve to death, so what? We are saving the planet! (/sarc)
But all those grass eaters could not come close to the energy expenditures of the current human population. So sharp a reduction in the human population would mean a large net decrease in produced GHGs.
An argument you will never hear made about Gaza or Ukraine.
At the beginning of the 19th century there were 10’s of million bison roaming North America all belching methane. There were almost driven to extinction by 1900. There were large herds of ruminants of unknown size.
Not to mention all of the other megafauna that used to populate North America.
Amazing how many solar panels I see covering nearly 75% of a SOUTH facing roof.
Curve of the earth. In NH, must face south to face the sun.
My new motto:
(1) CO2 is the staff of life
(2) Leftists are the real carbon pollution
I have not read many methane studies in recent years. Mainly because the methane volume in the atmosphere is tiny, measured in parts per billion by volume. The infrared gas absorption wavelengths overlap with water vapor.
As a result, the warming effect of methane emissions in the atmosphere is probably too small to measure. The effect with lab spectroscopy, in artificially dried air, is irrelevant, but highly publicized.
Methane should be discussed from this science angle — the tiny effect in the atmosphere — because cows are far from the only methane emitter.
Methane and Climate – CO2 Coalition
The methane study mentioned here is unusual, In the past I had read that methane released by cows was about the same as the methane released by grasses dying from cold weather, if there had been no cows eating the grasses.
The methane from dying grasses would be released a little slower than when cows eat the grasses, but the annual methane output on the farm would be about the same with or without cows.
I guess there was not much interest in additional cow / studies after that common result.
No matter which studies are correct, the demonization of methane goes far beyond banning cows and sheep.
The energy industry emits methane too
Building a dam:
When a dam is built, the area behind the dam is flooded by water and all the vegetation dies. The rotting plants behind a dam store up their methane in the mud. When the supply of water lowers behind a dam, a huge amount of stored methane can suddenly be released.
Arctic ice and permafrost melting releases trapped methane
Oceans
The ocean-based microbe Nitrosopumilus maritimus produces methane through a complex biochemical process
Rice farming
Composting
Technology
The device you’re using to read this article was manufactured with the help of methane. The semiconductors in computers and mobile devices are produced using several different methane gases, including trifluoromethane, perfluoromethane and perfluoroethane. Some of this gas escapes in the waste process. According to an EPA report, the total of all of these gases released in 2010 was the equivalent of 5.4 teragrams of carbon dioxide.
Humans eating baked beans
— Save the cows, because a pizza with no pepperoni should be unconstitutional. I contacted my CongressIdiot Ratshita Tlaib, about a baked bean ban. She claimed the Jews invented baked beans. She also blamed the Jews when I complained about too many road potholes in our Michigan district.
Who are the top 5 emitters of methane?
Of these five, only the United States and Brazil are part of the Global Methane Pledge. Looking only at energy-related emissions, the five largest emitting countries are China, Russia, the United States, Iran and India. Of these, only the United States is part of the Pledge.
I have not read anything recently but at least a couple of on the ground studies concluded that melting permafrost would probably result in less methane as the native bacteria, whose population greatly increases with increased temperature, consume all the released methane as well as any that blows over their tract.
A slightly different slant — Vegetation consume CO2, Cattle consume vegetation, Cattle expel some methane. Over 6-12 years all methane breaks down into CO2. Cycle repeats.
Preconceived notions are not helpful and there are a couple of classic examples of this in interplanetary exploration. Probes have have shown that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on Venus (96.5%) and Mars (96.0%) could not have been caused by the burning of ‘fossil’ fuels.
Furthermore, we must ask: just how prevalent is methane in our solar system?
Earth …….. 0.0002 ppm
Jupiter ….. 3,000 ppm
Saturn ..… 4,000 ppm
Uranus …. 23,000 ppm
Neptune .. 15,000 ppm
Saturn’s moon, Titan, hosts gigantic lakes brimming with liquid methane, constantly replenished by methane rain. Methane is not a ‘fossil fuel’. What’s the point of the NASA space program if its results are simply ignored?
“Scientific research” has no value unless it gives politicians and religious fanatics an excuse to make people feel guilty about something.
Cows produce methane the same way termites do by the action of bacteria that help the animal by fermenting cellulose. Termites and other bugs produce way more methane than cows do. Cows may as well be escapees from a cell from the prison in the Shawshank Redemption.
Maybe we should send the climatistas off to exterminate termites, by killing each termite with a pin, one by one. Not only would it save Mother Earth, it would “create jobs,” and keep those hypochondriacs busy for quite a while.
These inter-governmental agency/media types need to stop telling us about life
without beef and just show us. I’d recommend they do so from the plains
of equatorial E Africa. They need to go out and live with the Maasai and
set an example. I doubt they would last a year…
Aside from the fact that all vegetation eventually dies and decays (either the entire plant, or in the case of trees, they discard leaves that do the same thing), there is also the little matter that cattle production merely replaced what was formerly a source of protein in natural bison populations. The herds of bison in the Great Plains once numbered about 60 million animals … and bison are roughly twice the size and bodyweight of modern beef cattle. Since production of methane via animal digestion is obviously proportional to body weight, those 60 million farting bison produced the same methane output as 120 million modern beef cattle.
The total beef cattle population in the US last year was just under 90 million. So that is a net reduction in methane production compared to natural populations of bison.
There are two or three voting blocks that must be appeased. That, not chemistry and biology, are what is important.
Methane is short lived in the atmosphere decomposing into CO2 and H2O both of which are consumed by plants.
It is a natural cycle that is in equilibrium given the number of cattle is relatively stable.
That’s the crux of it.
An addition to this narrative is that some areas would not have such heavy crops of grass if not irrigated. I live in such and area, a rather dry and rocky alluvial fan.
Using Google Earth, you can see it here:
47.049868, -120.479778
In fact, move 35 miles east of that spot – to near George, WA – and there are many square miles of irrigated apples, grapes, and a dozen other crops. Much Alfalfa is also grown. The majority of these harvests is shipped out, both nationally and internationally.
When you buy apples in Cleveland – thank you!
At this scale, the issue of methane and beef is just silly.
That GoogleEarth image of George, with all the circular irrigation spots is pretty cool ! 🙂
I guess that without human intervention, this area would be pretty dry and inhospitable.
No, it isn’t. The whole notion is ridiculous.
“Is Beef Production A Major Contributor To Climate Change?”
NO !!
Zero effect on climate.
Another great article, Francis! Thanks.
Very nice Francis.
I thought using Fossil Fuels was the main problem?
I’ve never eaten a Fossil steak.
(Though, I must admit, I’ve accidentally turned a steak into carbon on the grill.)
Harold the Chemist says:
The concentration of methane in the air is 1.9 ppm. The reason the concentration of methane is so low in air is due to the initiation of combustion by discharges of lighting, which also produces ozone.
Most of the ozone oxidizes nitrogen, but also some of the methane
Another sink for methane is cold water. At about 0 deg C, 1 liter of water can hold up to 170 ml of
methane.
We don’t have to worry about methane.
Wasn’t it Trenberth who said exactly this in Australia just recently? I was surprised because given his adherence to the AGW theory this seems so sensible and obvious.
I think he sid it in New Zealand, eh.
And the same time, it’s assessed that bisons could help capture CO2 !!
Are Bisons a specie who don’t produce methane and/or CO2 ??
Or maybe our “elites” wants to keep bison meat for their own pleasure and convert us (the mass) at synthetic hamburgers and bugs ?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/15/bison-romania-tarcu-2m-cars-carbon-dioxide-emissions-aoe
No. Next stupid question, please.
The idea that humans eating beef affects the climate by way of methane emissions from belching animals is nonsensical. The huge numbers of rampaging bison in the plains of 19thC America show that the resulting methane has been far higher than now. Methane is produced around the world from under sea and under land sources. You can even see it bubbling up to the surface of the sea in many places. For example in the Gulf of Mexico where this has gone on for millennia. There was/is a suspicion that some of the historic shipping losses in the Bermuda Triangle were caused by massive methane bubbles that destroyed the ships’ ability to float. Any examination of deep undersea vents shows huge methane emissions – among other noxious compounds. Now in only the past twelve months or so we have the discovery of a massive world wide underground vegetative layer which clearly must be a cause of permanent and extensive methane emissions.
Estinated number of beef cattle today in the USA is something like 92 million. In the 18th century we had something like 60 million buffalo ( now gone) and somewhere around 105 million other grass eaters (now largely gone).
I don’t see that cow farts come close to the 18th century farts.
Plus millions of hooves and droppings contribute immensely to the overall ecology of grasslands.
A Bill gates meat plant will do more ecological harm then all the cows we eat.
Now that the article has aged and received lots of comments:
Everything you never wanted to know about cattle and corn:
The article compares meat, mainly from steers, with grasses that cows eat rather than the corn that steers eat.
The grass that would rot and release CH4 if not eaten by cows … has nothing to do with almost all the meat, which is from steers than do not have grass diets. Corn is the primary food for steers.
Cows or heifers as they are referred to are too valuable for breeding and continuing the herd or milking depending on the breed. Once these are no longer viable for this purpose. they are not very good for steaks though sometimes acceptable for hamburger or dog food.
COWS (female) mainly for milk
Cows’ natural diet consists mainly of grasses, legumes, alfalfa, clover, and hay. They are grazing animals, after all. Many cows also enjoy fruits as delicious snacks. In fact, the average cow eats 2% of their body weight a day, which averages out to 24-26 pounds of food each day.
STEERS (castrated males) for meat
Corn is the most common ingredient in steer rations. Corn is a feed high in energy and moderate as a protein source for finishing steers. Steers like to eat corn and will do best when it is cracked or very coarsely ground. If you live on a farm, you will probably have homegrown corn available.
The difference between cows and steers was pointed out in a much earlier comment.
I mentioned in an early comment that the arguments against methane scaremongering should be based on the very tiny effect as a greenhouse gas in an atmosphere that contains water vapor. That ends all claims that CH4 is dangerous.
Sweet corn is the main kind of corn people eat. This is the type you’ll find in the produce aisle of your grocery store.
The vast majority of corn grown is for feeding livestock, ethanol production or other uses in manufacturing—creating everything from crayons to soda. This type of corn is known as field corn.
People don’t eat field corn directly from the field because it’s hard and certainly not sweet. Instead, field corn must go through a mill and be converted to food products and ingredients like corn syrup, corn flakes, yellow corn chips, corn starch or corn flour.
On average, U.S. farmers plant about 90 million acres of corn each year, with the majority of the crop grown in the Heartland region. Most of the crop is used domestically as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed and for fuel ethanol production.
Out of all corn produced in the U.S., only 1% is made for human consumption.
An area the size of Montana is planted in corn every year in the United States; less than 1 percent of that is sweet corn eaten by humans. Farmers talk of crops and equipment and prices, but not of food. (Well, except for when they claim to be “feeding the world,” which simply isn’t true.)
The largest United States crop in terms of total production is corn, the majority of which is grown in a region known as the Corn Belt. The second largest crop grown in the United States is soybeans. As with corn, soybeans are primarily grown in the Midwestern states.