Sometimes, you really don’t need to make up an April Fools joke. Truth can indeed be stranger than fiction, except for the part about “four gallons” which is part of the original Telegraph article 😉 – Anthony
From the Telegraph UK, by Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Fish oils reduce greenhouse emissions from ‘flatulent cows’
Cows which are fed omega 3 fatty acids belch out less greenhouse gases that cause climate change, according to scientists.
Cattle produce large amounts of methane as they digest their food and then belch out most of it through their mouths.
A herd of 200 cows can produce annual emissions of methane roughly equivalent in energy terms to driving a family car more than 100,000 miles (180,000km) on more than four gallons (21,400 litres) of petrol.
The omega 3 fatty acids found in fish oils can also help the heart and circulatory system and improve meat quality.
Speaking at the Society for General Microbiology meeting in Harrogate, Dr Lorraine Lillis, one of the researchers, said the study could help the agriculture industry cut emissions.
She said: “The fish oil affects the methane-producing bacteria in the rumen part of the cow’s gut, leading to reduced emissions.
“Understanding which microbial species are particularly influenced by changes in diet and relating them to methane production could bring about a more targeted approach to reducing methane emissions in animals.”
The UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050.
More than a third of all methane emissions in the UK is produced by farm animals. By volume, methane is 20 times more powerful at trapping solar energy than carbon dioxide making it a potent greenhouse gas.
Jonathan Scurlock, an adviser at the National Farmers Union, said farmers were willing to modify feed in order to reduce emissions but at the moment there are few affordable options on the market and he encouraged more research into the area.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This may be hard to believe, but the previous Labour Party-lead government in New Zealand actually passed legislation late last year that would have taxed, with no upper price limit, the methane and CO2 emissions of all cows and sheep. If this scheme proceeds as it stands, New Zealand’s farmers will be put at a major competitive disadvantage. The legislation is presently being reviewed by a parliamentary select committee, formed by the new centre-right government, and it seems unlikely to survive in its present form. The AGW madness knows no bounds.
Crosspatch… tried to view it numerous times here in Texas… always too cloudy it seems… won’t give up though… might be a few opportunities this week…
Mike
Must be moving across the sky rather quickly…
Mmmmmmm fish-flavored milk… I bet that will go good with the cheerios and coffee…
Mike
Jeff Id (18:45:41) :
Our host’s guest post is the topic of the latest RC thread.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/advocacy-vs-science/
Apparently the science blog of the year represents advocates rather than reasonable thinkers. Of course that implies that we the visitors and commentators are the same.
Of course I had to reply.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/ten-replies-to-gavin-advocacy-vs-science/
My thinking is that Gavin could use 50K visitors or so leaving comments to point out the weakness of his latest argument.
Jeff,
There is a rather beautiful reply in that post. I’m not sure any futher comments are needed.
Put me in the advocate category. As a well educated adult (MS Mech Engineering, MBA Columbia) I had no idea – until I saw An Inconvenient Truth – that human beings had reconfigured the earth’s atmosphere in such a dramatic way over such a short period of human history. When I also learned that this reconfiguration could have had serious implications for the stability of the earth’s climate system, I became an advocate. Now I am learning from climate scientists like Mark Chandler, Linda Sohl and Christy Vedeer at GISS, I am working with Tom Lovejoy of the Heinz Center to understand how biosystems are being affected by climate change, and I have formed a business consortium called InTERRAction to encourage business enterprises to see themselves as systems, and as subsystems of a global economic system that eventually must be aligned with the earth’s ecosystem.
I can speak pretty coherently to lay people about the basics of climate change, but the work that Dr. Lindzen puts out makes me look sort of out of place – as in who would listen to me about the dangers of AGW when someone with the credentials of a Richard Lindzen thinks the opposite.
Is it sufficent (or indeed proper) to say that Lindzen is just an indignant scientist whose ideas have been rejected by his peers, and leave it at that?
Comment by Andrew — 1 April 2009 @ur momisugly 7:41 PM
Some at NASA let the facts out, but continue to include the global warming spin
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
deep solar minimum
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions:
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”:
Yet, they toss in a throw away line:
“These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming”
So if we need to be catching fish for fish oil, go here to see oceanic environmental conditions. Looks like the food chain has restarted big time.
http://www.pacoos.org/%5CQuarterlyUpdate_Climatic%5COctNovDec08.pdf
Or go to the home page of Pacific Coast Ocean Observation System, and look around:
http://www.pacoos.org/Default.htm
Bill Illis (16:00:36) :
“But there has been a slight uptick in Methane concentrations over the past two years. Not substantial; from about 1790 ppb in 2006 to about 1807 ppb in March, 2009 at Mauna Loa – there is different rates of change at different observation sites.”
Let’s not forget that there was also a maximum in the flora for the past decade, which corresponds to the hotter climate we had… more flora, more decomposition = more methane.
AKD,
While you make a good point, read the post by jack above and ask yourself if the single comment is enough.
Jeff Id wrote:
My thinking is that Gavin could use 50K visitors or so leaving comments to point out the weakness of his latest argument.
He’s trolling for clicks. Why encourage him when such comments won’t get published?
John Galt (15:34:40) :
How many more years will it be when you say ‘where’s the beef?’ and people ask ‘what’s beef’?
Seriously, the zealots want to take away our red meat. They don’t want us to have the freedom to decide for ourselves what is good for us. They are coming up with every excuse under the sun in order to ban meat.
Do you know people who eat a moderate meat diet get less colon cancer than vegetarian? Meat is part of a balance diet. Why do we have incisors and canines (teeth) if not to eat meat? If man were made to live on vegetables alone, he’d have teeth like a cow.
Do you know what really produces a lot of methane? Wetlands. We’ve been working to restore wetlands in this country for decades. Maybe we should be draining them instead? Save the planet, drain the wetlands.
John – It must be said.
If GOD had intended us NOT to eat animals – then he would NOT have made them from rare, juicy, delicious, tender MEAT.
G
Katherine,
If you’re worried your comments don’t get published. Put them in two places.
Highlight CTRL-C copy
HIghlight CTRL-V paste
Every comment is individually read and moderated into …. Sounds like a big job.
Mike Bryant (19:38:10) :
Mmmmmmm fish-flavored milk… I bet that will go good with the cheerios and coffee…
Mike
I just tested that by crushing a canned sardine into a nice steaming mug of Milky Cappuchino Coffee.
The result – Delicious!!!
Science vs Advocacy?
If you view the practice of science as essentially a political act, then all practicing scientists are advocates.
The above assumption is false, and so is the conclusion.
Science can be practiced without advocacy, ref any non-politicised branch of science. Pure math for example. Politicians can’t use it, don’t care about it, hence not politicised, hence we don’t hear from Pure Math Political Advocates.
However, the presence of Advocacy guarantees that the practioner is practicing political actions. REF RealClimate
The value of omega3 in animal diets was first studied in farms in Greece where it was found that hens feeding naturally on Portulaca_oleracea produced eggs high in omega3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portulaca_oleracea
“Purslane contains more Omega-3 fatty acids (alpha-linolenic acid in particular[4]) than any other leafy vegetable plant. Simopoulos states that Purslane has .01 mg/g of EPA. This is an extraordinary amount of EPA for land based vegetable sources. EPA is an Omega-3 fatty acid normally found mostly in fish, some algae and flax seeds. ”
I would hate my milk smelling fishy, so I do not see why they did not feed these animals on purslane. It is an easily grown weed.
The science is settled. It’s official!
Global warming is caused by yak farts. It’s the methane.
Now comes the tough part – feeding wild salmon oil to wild yaks.
Safety First! Wild yaks are known to be hostile and dangerous.
Approach cautiously from the rear, and kindly Refrain from Smoking.
Allan M R MacRae (21:38:43) :
The science is settled. It’s official!
Global warming is caused by yak farts. It’s the methane.
Now comes the tough part – feeding wild salmon oil to wild yaks.
Safety First! Wild yaks are known to be hostile and dangerous.
Approach cautiously from the rear, and kindly Refrain from Smoking.
If approaching the Wild Yak from the rear is the safest option – why not then insert an “Omega 3” Enema in the form of a greasy finger shaped pill.
It’s great work, out in the open air, plenty of physical exercise (hiking and running) and you can get the satisfaction of knowing that you are saving the planet from global warming.
Jeff Id, indeed. And looking closer at the other blog linked from the RealClimate post, what is up with with this blogger (Chris Colose, I assume) using language such as follows?
“so if you’re just learning from deviant views without understanding what the literature says, you’re probably going to be misled.”
“You must be aware his views are very deviant from the mainstream”
” You’re spending way too much time listening to deviant views on the subject. ”
The last time I came into contact with frequent use of the word “deviant” as a pejorative was in a class on 1930s Soviet Union and Germany.
In fact, an online dictionary includes this usage example:
“Preposition: of
kind: Deviants of all kinds swiftly became solely responsible for any actions which conflicted with the values of the Stalinist regime.”
Am I missing something here, or is this word slipping back into mainstream usage as a pejorative?
Unintended consequences.
Years ago Kansas City decided to raise money by taxing the windows in buildings. Great idea. Building owners promptly bricked in the window openings and workers were no longer treated to natural light. The window tax also has a history in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax
The recently enforced “no lead” in children’s toys law was not properly thought through. Now libraries are closing off children’s sections because they cannot prove the books have no lead. Also, small artisans and sellers of children’s things have lost money and/or closed the business because of this law.
Never underestimate the stupidly of legislators.
In regards to the continually resurfacing “fish-oil” theme here….please take a few minutes to read my posts at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/27/ocean-iron-fertilization-experiment-a-blooming-failure/#comments
Beginning at savethesharks (11:58:33).
Yeah I know….my screen name gives away my concern. But the problem of overfishing is a fixable one (unlike the myth of AGW).
Please take the time to read and digest the links.
Ocean marine life is in trouble….and it is pretty much OUR fault. Case closed.
We caused it. We should fix it (natural ebbs and flows of the natural oscillations withstanding).
Easy read…
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Another study from a few years ago.
“Using aromatic extracts of herbs such as thyme, mint and others could reduce the level of fermentation in the rumen – causing less flatulence and a more bearable smell. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/scotland/1791955.stm
Well might be a better idea than fish oil, apart from the problems already stated here is another one quote from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_oil
“Such fatty predatory fish like mackerel, lake trout, flounder, albacore tuna and salmon may be high in omega-3 fatty acids, but due to their position at the top of the food chain, these species can accumulate toxic substances (See biomagnification). For this reason, the FDA recommends limiting consumption of certain (predatory) fish species (e.g. albacore tuna, shark, and swordfish) due to high levels of toxic contaminants such as mercury, dioxin, PCBs and chlordane.”
But there is always the feelgood organic version.
“There are vegetarian, DHA Omega-3 products made from algae available if toxic contaminants are of concern.”
OT but interesting new theory on forests and weather:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227024.400-rainforests-may-pump-winds-worldwide.html?page=2
What ever did the earth do to survive runaway global warming from dinosaur farts, breath…whatever, without we humans around?
This is simply MORE old-fashioned snake oil!
We’ll probably wind up with mad fish disease.
Now I know what the term “wind farm” really means.
You should check it out. Also check out Sharkwater http://www.sharkwater.com one of the most important documentaries in the 21st Century no doubt.
Regarding fish oil….please see below. This is a funny topic about cow farts….but also a serious related question to species depletion.
The problems vexxing the oceans are as complex as the food-web that laces them.
Here’s a good read: The Most Important Fish in the Sea. The Rutgers prof and avid fisherman who is its author, chronicles in detail the lowly menhaden, the east coast staple fish that many other fish depend on.
We use ‘em (this author included) for bait…and they stink to high heaven. They are oily and bony, so not good eatin’…but other fish love em. One author describes the menhaden as “born to be eaten.”
Well the menhaden, once overfished before to the point of near extinction, until states began outlawing their catch, are in decline again.
Now, my lovely home state of Virginia, the last state to not make menhaden fishing illegal in its waters, hosts the second highest-grossing fishing port in the nation, the tiny Chesapeake Bay town of Reedville (population 2000). That town is made possible by a Texas-based company named Omega Protein (started as the Zapata Corporation years ago by the bush family).
Omega Protein has a monopoly on the national menhaden catch, and through their vast reduction fishing fleet and plants at Reedville, annually grinds up 250 million pounds of menhaden to become your catfood, fish-oil, omega 3 vitamins, fertilizer, and so on.
http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1901