Kangaroo Farts: A Great Green Disappointment

Kangaroo at Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, Author Drex Rockman
Kangaroo at Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, Author Drex Rockman, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Scientists researching the underlying reason for the low methane content of Kangaroo farts, with a view to reducing cow flatulence, have been disappointed to discover there is nothing special about Kangaroo gut bacteria.

According to The Guardian;

For some time, researchers intent on breeding less windy flocks and herds hypothesised kangaroos might have a unique mix of micro-organisms in their stomachs that produce less of the gas.

The hope was by transplanting these micro-organisms, cattle and sheep might produce less methane.

But new findings suggest otherwise, and should help refocus sheep and cattle research on alternatives that might yield results.

The experiment saw red and western grey kangaroos kept in comfy, sealed chambers, allowing researchers to analyse the mix of gases going in and coming out.

“We think that the methane is low because of the way food moves through the kangaroo stomach, and not because of a unique gut fauna,” study author Dr Adam Munn said.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/05/kangaroo-farts-could-have-implications-for-farmers-in-climate-change-fight

You might think the next step in the battle to defeat the bovine methane menace, is a transgenic KangarMoo, a cow with the gut processes of a Kangaroo. The Guardian article sadly shies away from this fascinating possibility, and kindof peters out with some vague speculation about researching possible land use changes.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 5, 2015 5:42 am

Just add a burn-off on the tail of the critter

Reply to  Djozar
November 5, 2015 5:50 am

But doesn’t burning methane releases carbon dioxide and water vapor?

Reply to  Paul
November 5, 2015 6:27 am

Yes, but methane is a lot stronger a GHG than CO2, which is weak

Reply to  Paul
November 5, 2015 6:36 am

Alright then add a stack and CO2 scrubber – that project should keep them occupied for at least 7 years

Reply to  Paul
November 5, 2015 7:47 am

“but methane is a lot stronger a GHG than CO2”
Would burning just create rural heat islands?
I’ve read that an elephant releases 2000 litres of methane gas per day, it would be much easier to add a burn-off. Maybe use the “dung cam” to monitor results?

Reply to  Paul
November 5, 2015 8:39 am

Alright add a boiler and turbine to recover the energy

Reply to  Paul
November 6, 2015 5:32 am

arthur4563 prove that CH4 is a stronger greenhouse gas. It actually is not if one understands chemistry, heat transfer and looks at actual data. see https://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2011/10/ The IPCC have no proof they just accepted this lie from individuals, in “green” groups, who have no qualifications but are good at spreading false information.

November 5, 2015 5:47 am

But if the gas composition ain’t right, surely the air blast will assist the turbines.
Who do I contact to obtain a grant to study this phenomenon?

Reply to  toorightmate
November 5, 2015 11:54 am

Contact the EPA for a grant. Be sure to state right up front that the study will allow you to save the world from Climate Change – a shoo-in (or is that a moo-in) for the money.

Reply to  toorightmate
November 5, 2015 2:57 pm

Oh my gosh, there goes another slug of methane!
Do you think I should burn off my farts as they occur?
What about the Queen and her family? Maybe they should set example(s).
I bet they are the most royal farts of all!
(Caviar probably)

Klaas de Waal
November 5, 2015 5:53 am

I don’t think cross breeding cows and kangaroos is a viable option as there will be a lot of challenges to overcome. Not the least of which would be trying to ride a cowgaroo bull at a rodeo. Or being a spectator for that matter.

Reply to  Klaas de Waal
November 5, 2015 5:59 am

A cowgaroo leaping and bouncing through you vege patch will do untold damage to your “greens”

Reply to  AB
November 5, 2015 8:05 am

I’m all for doing maximum damage to greens.

Reply to  AB
November 5, 2015 11:48 pm

Just feed them with some fruits and you have ready made mikshake after the cowgaroo have jumped around for a while. 🙂

DD More
Reply to  Klaas de Waal
November 5, 2015 7:34 am

Time to get Monsanto GM group working on this. Added benefit, the alliance would be a 10:10 video reenactment for the Greens.

Reply to  Klaas de Waal
November 5, 2015 8:41 am

I disagree. What about the success in developing the jackalope? Similar technology could be used.

Owen in GA
Reply to  oeman50
November 5, 2015 12:48 pm

I never saw a jackalope grow once it was created though…something about the taxidermy process stops all that, but then again I never saw one pass any methane either.

Johna Till Johnson
November 5, 2015 5:54 am

🙂 Extra points for the (intentional? inadvertent?) Kipling reference in the headline (“The Great Gray Green Greasy Limpopo River…”)

Mumbles McGuirck
November 5, 2015 6:00 am

Honestly? This is where the grant money is going? To teach cows to fart like a ‘roo?? Don’t try to teach a cow to fart like a kangaroo. It is a waste of time and money and it annoys the cow.

November 5, 2015 6:01 am

There are too many people in the world today getting paid for non-jobs with no productive value.

Matt Collins
Reply to  mpcraig
November 5, 2015 7:15 am


Caligula Jones
Reply to  mpcraig
November 5, 2015 7:49 am

But, but, but…the processing of billions of dollars of grants has a value. Doesn’t it? Think of all the unemployed bureaucrats and paper pushers that would be out of work if researchers had to actually produce something of value, even a small percentage of the time.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 5, 2015 2:11 pm

Welcome to the Nu economy of dismantling jobs that produce wealth and replacing them with “service” jobs, what could go wrong?

Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2015 6:02 am

The obvious answer is to tax cow emissions, i.e. a flatulence tax, or a flat tax for short. Republicans have pushed for it for years.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2015 6:51 am

That’s it… I’m officially declaring my candidacy. The cornerstone of my campaign platform will be my FLATUS Tax Plan.

November 5, 2015 6:06 am

Yet another disappointment is that no correlation can be detected between the rate of methane emissions from enteric fermentation and net changes in atmospheric methane.

November 5, 2015 6:07 am

Do kangaroo’s taste as good as cows?

Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2015 6:08 am

They taste like giant mice.
Because they are.

Reply to  Menicholas
November 5, 2015 6:17 am

Then do mice take as good as cows?

Steve P
Reply to  Menicholas
November 5, 2015 8:16 am

Giant mice? You must be joking.
Mice are placental mammals, where kangaroos are marsupials.

Bob B.
Reply to  Menicholas
November 5, 2015 8:24 am

My cat prefers them

Reply to  Menicholas
November 5, 2015 1:43 pm

Mice or kangaroos?

Klaas de Waal
Reply to  Menicholas
November 6, 2015 5:08 am

They taste like chicken.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2015 7:50 am

They probably taste like humans, if we use the PETA “a cow is a dog is a boy” mantra.

Steve P
Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2015 8:54 am

“Do kangaroo’s taste as good as cows?”
Use of apostrophe s to form plural is required only with lower-case letters, so watch your p’s and q’s.
Is a kangaroo’s taste as good as a cow’s? Use the apostrophe only to indicate possession. The horse’s gas will eventually pass.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
November 5, 2015 9:07 am

I said:
“Use the apostrophe only to indicate possession.”
I should have said:
Use apostrophe s only to indicate possession.
The kangaroo’s pocket…
Form plural of any noun simply by adding s. That’s it.
The apostrophe is also used to indicate contraction, where it stands in for omitted letters.
He’d been spending too much time watching TV.

Michael 2
Reply to  Steve P
November 5, 2015 11:30 am

I think the apostrophe-s combination can also properly be used in the plural form of an acronym: I have three CD’s.

Reply to  Steve P
November 5, 2015 1:45 pm

kangaroos don’t posses their taste?

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
November 5, 2015 2:36 pm

Michael 2
November 5, 2015 at 11:30 am
“I think the apostrophe-s combination can also properly be used in the plural form of an acronym: I have three CD’s.”
There’s no need for the apostrophe to indicate plural:
My CDs have all been ripped. The CD’s contents included songs from the ’50s.
The only reason the apostrophe is used with lower case letters is to avoid ambiguity: p’s and q’s vs. ps and qs. There is no ambiguity with CDs, or DVDs,
Simplicity rules.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
November 5, 2015 4:50 pm

“Form plural of any noun simply by adding s. That’s it”.
Rather, that’s almost it. ‘Forgot about these guys:
Nouns ending in ss form plural by adding es:
mess messes, guess guesses, boss bosses, toss tosses, miss misses, hiss hisses, and so on.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
November 6, 2015 10:26 am

Heh. Well, I woke up in the middle of the night realizing I’d overlooked a few more nouns that add es to form plural: bush bushes, wretch wretches, bitch bitches…you get the idea. In these cases, the word’s pronunciation will be your guide.
So let me try again: English nouns form plural by adding s or sometimes es, but almost never by adding apostrophe s.
Only in a very few special cases is apostrophe s required. Some writers may add the incorrect apostrophe in forming plural because they see others doing it.
Monkey see, monkey do.

Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2015 8:12 pm

Roo meat is very lean, a bit of a cows liver hint of taste to it. Very good marinaded with a garlic, mushroom or pepper sauce. I have still to try emu and crock.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2015 12:10 am

The Judge’s forehead formed a frown.
“You stand before me, William Brown,
Charged with violations backed
By the Threatened Species Act,
To wit that you on April 2,
Did kill and eat a kangaroo.”
I did, my Lord, my plea is guilty.”
“I have in mind a heavy sentence
Unless you show me great repentance.
Something short of execution –
It’s too late now for restitution.
What say you to mitigate
The value of the roo you ate?”
My Lord, I beg to you for mercy.”
“The farm I had had copped the drought.
The roos ate all the pasture out.
I had no work, the kids no food,
I did what any father would
To save the life of kith and kin –
We ate the roo and tanned the skin.”
(His left eye shed a gentle tear.)
The Judge’s eyed were moist as well.
The level of his fury fell.
“In view of evidence presented,
Because you have so much repented,
I see no need to go beyond
A 3-month good behaviour bond.”
“All stand please”, the Usher said.
As William Brown walked out of court
His Honour said in afterthought,
“Before you go, and now you’re free,
Would you please describe for me
And learned counsel here too,
What is the taste of kangaroo?”
William Brown thought long and deep.
“Your Honour, it is hard to say –
Let me put it in this way.
On one hand it is flavoured rather
Like a freshly-grilled koala.
But then again, it has a touch
Of marinated platypus.”
“With leave, my Lord, my cab is waiting!”

Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2015 1:49 am

Actually they (kangaroos) taste very nice, gamey and very, very lean. It needs a kind of strong flavouring to go with the flavour though.

Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2015 4:34 am

YES! cooked properly I have fooled people who say they wouldnt eat Roo.
excellent casseroles and extremely tender as a fillet steak..so tender you need to be as careful in searing it as with fillet, so it doesnt stick to the pan and rip.
best is shot yourself as you CAN check for tapeworm
however in handling many tons of the secondgrade meat as petfood I only ever saw one suspect tapeworm segment
our QA is very very good.
sth aussie company called DEWS I believe they export cryovac packs globally.

Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2015 2:55 pm

“Do kangaroo’s taste as good as cows?”
I had a roo burger once. Quite nice.

Reply to  Hivemind
November 6, 2015 2:57 pm

I should have added, there are many specialty butchers that will provide it, along with numerous other meats, in Australia. Don’t worry that the kangaroo is on the coat of arms. In Australia they are a feral pest, whose numbers need to be kept down.

November 5, 2015 6:07 am

It hardly matters, since according to the UN high command, we will all be switching our steak and burgers for roaches and moths.

November 5, 2015 6:14 am

Cut Methane 40-45%? Climate hysteria gone crazy. A Limerick
cowbackpacksA Message that EPA sent.
Cut Methane by 40%.
No more rice, no more beef,
no more milk, no more cheese.
And yet, it will not make a dent.
What is the EPA belching out now? http://lenbilen.com/2015/08/18/3766/

November 5, 2015 6:23 am

There is no cure for stupid!…pg

November 5, 2015 6:45 am

Reblogged this on Dave Alexander & Company — Ukuleledave and David Edgren and commented:
“Honey? Remember how I said I was a part of a really important scientific study? Yeah. Well, never mind.”

November 5, 2015 6:54 am

Why don’t we just start eating Roo’s instead of cows ????

Reply to  Marcus
November 5, 2015 6:54 am

Mmmmmmm…Roo steak !! LOL…

Plan Jane
Reply to  Marcus
November 5, 2015 12:37 pm

What is funny about roo steak? You just have to cook it different because it has almost no fat in it.

Reply to  Marcus
November 5, 2015 1:45 pm

Thar’s your problem, right thar.

Reply to  Marcus
November 6, 2015 1:41 am

Marcus…it may have no fat…but it is a good eat, try it but do not cook it like a steak. You then may as well eat a used tyre. Basically cook it “blue” or rather just show it the flame.

Joel O’Bryan
November 5, 2015 7:00 am

Note that it all the future-casted fictions of a global hegemony (1984, Soylent Green, etc) meat is something only the very rich, politically-connected elites have.
George Orwell very correctly saw the Left as it really is.

November 5, 2015 7:03 am

Well for one they picked the wrong end (maybe they are just a wee bit smarter in New Zealand):
“According to researchers at New Zealand’s largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch, up to 95 percent of the emissions comes from the cow’s mouth rather than its behind.”
But then here is the rel difference between the animals (and this on ehow yet):
“Although it consumes a diet similar to the cow’s and shares digestive similarities, such as two stomach chambers and cud-chewing, the kangaroo differs from the cow in that it produces almost no methane during digestion. As the kangaroo’s food ferments in its stomach, hydrogen is produced as a byproduct. Bacteria turn this hydrogen, not into methane, but into acetate, which the kangaroo then uses as energy. Scientists have considered introducing these bacteria to cow digestive systems in order to reduce emissions of methane”

Reply to  BFL
November 5, 2015 7:58 am

They didn’t measure which end the emissions came from. They put the roo in a room and measured the changes in the air content in the room.

Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2015 9:54 am

Was just going by the title of the article and in the Guardian link. Even by the “comfy room” description doesn’t say what or where they measured. My bad for not reading the original (apparently now always required)….

Steve P
Reply to  BFL
November 5, 2015 9:33 am

November 5, 2015 at 7:03 am
“”According to researchers at New Zealand’s largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch, up to 95 percent of the emissions comes from the cow’s mouth rather than its behind.””
You didn’t give a source, but I did find this:

Let’s start with how and why cows produce so much methane gas. Cows, sheep, goats, giraffes, and deer belong to a class of mammals called ruminants. Most ruminants have four stomachs, two-toed feet, and store their food in the first chamber of the stomach, called the rumen, before regurgitating it. This regurgitated food is called “cud” and the animals chew it again to help further break it down to make it easier to digest. Inside of the rumen, over four hundred different kinds of microbes exist that also play a critical role in the digestion process. Several of these microbes create methane gas as a byproduct. Due to the sheer number of cows on the planet, along with the large size per cow, our tasty friends produce more methane gas than all other ruminants combined.
In actuality it’s not as much the farting that’s the problem, cows’ burping and manure contribute more methane gas than flatulence. According to researchers at New Zealand’s largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch, up to 95 percent of the emissions comes from the cow’s mouth rather than its behind. It’s estimated, through whichever orifice, that each individual cow lets out between thirty and fifty gallons of methane per day. With an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 billion cattle in the world today, this adds up fast.

(my bold)
I don’t see anything on the methodology of this study wrt how the researchers were able to distinguish between gases vented from the front of the cow as opposed to those vented from the rear, but I suppose it was by process of elimination.

Reply to  Steve P
November 5, 2015 11:13 am

Given this info, they now have a reason to get into phase II of their study. ‘Roo burps need to be studied as well.

November 5, 2015 7:09 am

“We think that the methane is low because of the way food moves through the kangaroo stomach, and not because of a unique gut fauna,”
Well wouldn’t pursuing a different stomach(s) enzyme(s) be more fruitful than “the way the food moves”…..

Reply to  BFL
November 5, 2015 11:11 am

You’re talking about scientifically illiterate morons, here.
How the food moves is probably an important factor in their line of thinking.

Richard Cain
November 5, 2015 7:19 am

The Grauniad gets it wrong … AGAIN. Microbiologists term mixed populations of bacteria as Flora – not Fauna, which to be correct would be a population of multicellular eukariote life forms. Bacteria are prokaryotes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ-SMCmWB1s.

November 5, 2015 7:21 am

I am embarrassed to be a human.

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
November 5, 2015 7:57 am

I completely understand and sympathize with your comment, Gordon. On some days, WUWT gives good information and a laugh or two; but sometimes, I feel like just standing against a wall and slowly hitting my head against it after reading some of the stuff here from the climate alarmists. LOL!

Steve P
Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
November 5, 2015 8:58 am

Yea, it’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.

The Original Mike M
November 5, 2015 7:34 am

Why not just milk kangaroos?

Reply to  The Original Mike M
November 5, 2015 7:45 am

You ever get kicked by a cow while trying to milk her ??? Now, just imagine a kangaroo kick !!

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Marcus
November 5, 2015 12:34 pm

Exactly right, I got a chuckle imagining some “green” idiot getting a government grant to try it!

Reply to  The Original Mike M
November 6, 2015 3:02 pm

Apart from the fact they’re marsupials and don’t produce milk that way?

November 5, 2015 7:35 am

The Welsh experiments on cows led to a spin-off company, Mootral, which drew on a small amount of government grants supposedly aimed at changing the climate. Mootral went into liquidation after the grants dried up with no marketable product available after the methane scare collapsed in hysterical laughter.

Steve in SC
November 5, 2015 7:46 am


Caligula Jones
November 5, 2015 7:52 am

We are told that before the Europeans arrived, there were eleventy billion bison on the plains of North America. Now, they have been mostly replaced by a similar number of cattle.
Yet somehow bison farts had nothing to do with Earth’s methane problem.
Sorry, for a minute there I was looking for logic. Never mind.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 5, 2015 7:59 am

Did no one tell you that Bison farts were responsible for the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet? I have it here, somewhere in my notes under climate history rewrites by the warmists.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
November 5, 2015 11:18 am

We don’t really know, for a fact, that bison burps/farts were (and are) hazardous; we haven’t compared them with kangaroos’ specific gaseous ejections yet, and until we do we are just speculating.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  DonM
November 5, 2015 12:47 pm

Perhaps Big Green can spend a few dollars of its tens of billions to look into that speculation?
Or would this fall under the “lets not look at something that might challenge the paradigm (even though that’s our job)”.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  DonM
November 5, 2015 1:22 pm

BTW, found this after my response. Hey, if you can’t trust Penn State…:
Overall, methane emissions from bison, elk, and deer in the pre-settlement period in the contiguous United States were about 70% (medium bison population size) of the current emissions from farmed ruminants in the U.S.;
I’m not saying its not insignificant. I’m saying that I’d be suspicious of any study that doesn’t take into account that comparison.
Sorry, just the bean counter in me, and having to explain the difference between “gross” and “net” to over-educated bosses.

Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2015 8:03 am

Meanwhile back in the real world, the climate doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about methane. But I suppose these “researchers” aka “scientists” gotta eat.

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 5, 2015 7:31 pm

Now wait a minute. There’s lots of rats out there, and probably a very similar number of rats’ patooties. Surely all patooties are suspect until proven innocent.
Bruce Cobb, somewhere your grant awaits.

November 5, 2015 8:29 am

Kangaroo Farts: A Great Green Disappointment
Kangaroo Farts??? Science hits a new low.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  markstoval
November 5, 2015 12:53 pm

Smell wise, maybe.
But I see your kangaroo farts and raise you…bee tongues:

November 5, 2015 8:48 am

There’s no legitimate science behind this of course, there’s no way near enough methane in livestock farts to affect the climate in any way. This is all about restricting or removing our meat supply to weaken and sicken the population as a means of control, to remove resistance as they move toward a feudal world government and to make the population even more dependent on big pharma.
We all know the events surrounding Stan in South Park where he stopped eating meat and gradually small sores erupted on his body that grew larger and were found to be small vaginas. Stan had contracted vaginitis. Had he kept up with his vegan diet according to the doctor he was in danger of turning into one giant pussy.

November 5, 2015 9:17 am

It’s all meaningless drivel when you realize that methane and all “greenhouse” gases cannot detectably warm the Earth’s surface or atmosphere. These gases, at altitude are at -17 deg C and Earth’s surface is 15 deg C. Any radiation directed downward by the gases will be rejected and reflected by the surface and lost to space. A cold gas simply cannot warm a warmer surface. Methane and CO2 have half lives in the atmosphere of about 5 years, so this is a very dynamic situation. Study these animals to find out more about them but any efforts to decrease methane from them is a theft of research money, it’s a criminal waste of time, money, and resources.

Reply to  higley7
November 5, 2015 1:50 pm

Not this nonsense again. What matters is the total flow of energy. Anything that changes that flow will change the temperature of the objects involved. Radiation from a cold source does not “bounce” off of warmer surfaces. Sheesh.

November 5, 2015 9:33 am

so do I and you ?

John Q
November 5, 2015 10:26 am

Mmmmmmm just think about jumping cows for a sec…. Milk-shakes, butter… jumping over the moon
but I worry about the kiddies…
wouldn’t want to be near where they land…

John Powers
November 5, 2015 11:00 am

I vote for Kangamoo.

November 5, 2015 11:17 am

Just what are these authors breathing?
Whatever it is, they’re dangerously short of oxygen. Maybe they need to light a match to better see…
Let’s compare a two compartment roo stomach to a four compartment bovine stomach.
Oh Nooo! claim the researchers! It Must be the bacteria! We will isolate the roos and measure the room’s overall gas contents…
For all they know, the roos might breathe in methane and release CO2.
Nor did they assess the droppings for digestive efficiency nor compare the intake to output for digestive absorption preferences.
When they get to the basics, are the digestive processes of a roo adapted to drier conditions better than domesticated bovines? Perhaps studying the digestive tracts of arid creatures would be better?
And what about rabbits?

Reply to  ATheoK
November 5, 2015 11:59 am

We’ll have a field of alfalfa for the rabbits …
… I get to tend the rabbits, right George?

The Original Mike M
Reply to  ATheoK
November 5, 2015 12:36 pm

What about milking mice? Oh wait, we’re already paying for that idea – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2789213/

Reply to  ATheoK
November 5, 2015 12:44 pm

“And what about rabbits?”
Yes, I had rabbits for years. They didn’t seem to emit much gas from either end, they were eerily quiet. Too quiet.
But that got me thinking. If somebody’s studying the gas emissions of ruminants by experiment, really the experiment should compare CAFO fed cows with grassy pasture fed cows. Cows didn’t really evolve to eat the complex mix of stuff that CAFOs supply to them, any more than we evolved to eat Mc Donald’s.
Studies have also shown great correlation between cow gut flora and diet. Cows are apparently healthier on grass, and of course, the grass digests differently than commercial cow-feed.
So, another relevant question about cow burps and farts might be “does it matter how they’re fed”?
Other studies have shown that grass fed beasts are healthier for people to eat, and the milk and butter have better nutrient value as well.

Reply to  sleat65
November 14, 2015 1:45 pm

I’ve raised rabbits several times. I also believed that they were not gaseous; i.e. until my son came home from college with a pet rabbit.
There is a difference in animals raised as house pets versus farm animals kept and fed outdoors. Even when we raised angora rabbits, which require frequent handling, they were kept in cages outdoors.
Our new indoor pet bunny, Nina, was a spayed female who quickly owned the house, even my English Setter.
Nina quickly taught us that rabbits do sometimes have gas, perhaps frequently; but only occasionally is it potent.
One of Nina’s humorous traits was the look she would give me after a noxious gas cloud was emitted. I’d get the same look, no matter which of us dispensed the gas. After making sure I was saturated with her glare, she’d hop off with backward kicks emphasizing her dissatisfaction.

“…Studies have also shown great correlation between cow gut flora and diet. Cows are apparently healthier on grass, and of course, the grass digests differently than commercial cow-feed…”

That is simply not true.
Grass does digest differently, but after traveling through a number of stomachs, any vegetative foods eaten by a cow are well digested.
I spent a good part of two years working for a dairy farmer.
Milk is sold at quite ridiculously low prices. Cows produce copious milk, all day. Milking cows twice a day is a compromise and a minimum requirement.
As such, dairy farms can not afford expensive feeds. Most farmers allow their cows to graze as weather permits. Farmers also raise and harvest fields of grass, timothy and alfalfa. The easiest and cheapest to raise and harvest is the grass. Alfalfa may be a more nutritious higher protein food, but alfalfa requires harvesting just before peak flowering. All of these crops require drying before bundling into bales. Alfalfa is the fleshiest and unlike grass, it is not partially dried while standing. Just a couple of days of inconvenient rain and an alfalfa crop is ruined for cattle. Alfalfa is also a more valuable crop and many farmers sell all they raise.
One of the first lessons a farmer teaches is how to approach and handle cows. Cows are very routine oriented and are not fond of irregular or irresponsible activity. On my first trip through a cow barn, I noticed and asked about all of the brown stains on the wall behind the cow stalls. Many of these stains were five to six feet high, four feet behind the butts of the cows.
Now these cows were 100% grass fed cows. After I asked my question, the farmer Bob, looked at me and said that if I saw a cow’s tail lifting, that I would be a lot happier if I moved and gave the cow plenty of room.
This was obvious because most dairy cows are brought indoors for milking. Since then, I noticed many grazing animals from sheep and deer through elephants have similar explosive bowel movements. The elephant was best as onlookers surrounded the elephant; those behind the elephant were not happy campers.
A McDonald’s burger is actually quite healthful. A good mix of amino acids, protein, starches and fiber, if perhaps too much food for a meal.
Your concept of a CAFO is that of a large fattening operation run by corporations that process meat for urbanites and suburbanites. People that do not raise their own food and even complain when neighbors try to raise their own food.
Green Acres star ‘Eddie Albert’ was actually a true conservationist. He turned the front lawn of his California Pacific Palisade home into a small cornfield.
These CAFO as you refer to them are strictly short term places where cattle are fattened. Fattened by organizations that earn money from buying cattle and then feeding them high starch feed for weight gain before butchering.
Don’t like their business? Raise your own, or find a local butcher. I often buy a quarter steer from a farmer who is also a butcher. He not only raises cattle, but also farms. If demand is higher than his cattle herd can supply, he prefers to buy animals from the local 4-H clubs. Excellent quality animals raised by children learning husbandry. Most of these animals are raised as kings of the farm since the kids enter the animal in contests for best grown.
Arguing that meat is the problem is not a solution. Many of the grass crops, including forage crops like alfalfa are raised on land lying fallow or are poor land unsuitable for human food crops. If you’re insisting on the finest grown veggies, you are one of those who determines that land is unsuitable for human food crops.
Farmers operate on a desperately thin budget. Every inch of the property is raising one kind of crop or another. The recent push for ‘corn ethanol’ has caused many of the larger farms to literally plow to the edge to maximize crop and earnings.
Decades of true conservation organization work and efforts have been destroyed in a few years. These conservationists, mostly hunters, have worked directly with farmers convincing them of the necessity to leave edges and plots of land devoted to “Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)”. You’ll never see anyone from greenpeese or WWF talking or presenting to farmers information about these programs, yet these are critical for wildlife support.

“…Other studies have shown that grass fed beasts are healthier for people to eat, and the milk and butter have better nutrient value as well…”

That is false and falsehoods. Personal opinions masquerading as science is very typical of many promoting their pet lifestyles.
Selling organic began as a program in the USDA back in the 1960s and 1970s. Before the current POTUS, one could actually call up and review the original slideshows used by USDA to bringing farmers into selling organic foods as a niche product. Same crops, higher prices. Organic is a personal choice that is completely devoid of any difference to health.
USDA, (United States Department of Agriculture), is responsible for maintaining the ‘Nutritional Database’. If you want the absolute accurate facts on foods, you’ll find it in this database.
Eggs, a favorite discussion.
Organic, another favorite topic. Searching the food database for ‘organic’
Pork One of the few papers on organic meats.
The term ‘Organic’ is a marketing term, tool and ploy. The ploy is to sell the same product at higher prices. Yes, there are differences in how the crop is raised, but generally the cost differences favor certain crops being organic raised, branded and sold for a higher farmer profit.

November 5, 2015 12:31 pm

Would it be safe to milk Kangarmoos? The “Kangar” part has a nasty kick! Is our milk supply in danger?

Plan Jane
November 5, 2015 12:51 pm

Why not just eat the kangaroos then? Get the government to remove the legislation restricting killing them. Get rid of govt tags and let an industry develop. The roo numbers in rural areas of eastern Australia are insane, wth more roos to the acre than sheep in large areas of the country. They are excellent lean meat, very well adapted to the environment. They produce top quality thin tough and flexible hides (ask any leather plaiter, blame Beckams wife for pressureing Nike to stop using it in shoes).
Eat the roos instead is such a simple and obviously green solution that they hate it.
Main reason is that it is not politically correct to do the screamingly obvious.

Reply to  Plan Jane
November 5, 2015 3:03 pm

Its no good, Roo meat will make people fart. Mind you so does muesli.

Reply to  Plan Jane
November 6, 2015 4:45 am

as I wrote above..there IS legal roo meat supply but there could bee a lot more.
on farm you can cull excess but are supposed to shoot n drop n leave
like the morons ruled on feral goat culls
odd thing is leaving high nitrogen corpses near native plants…kills the plants!
the proper Greentard solution would be use as pet meat n hides for leather on roo n goat
the tapeworm/Hydatids is the ONLY problem with wild roos
do not EVER cook it as suggested here;
November 6, 2015 at 1:41 am
Marcus…it may have no fat…but it is a good eat, try it but do not cook it like a steak. You then may as well eat a used tyre. Basically cook it “blue” or rather just show it the flame.
oil or butter the pan properly!!!! and COOK IT THROUGH tapeworm in humans isnt pleasant, Hydatids is a whole load of grief…really!
like Deer theyre liable to stress panic and muscle breakdown following, so dont make for easy herd management as captive.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 6, 2015 7:47 pm

I never said *WILD* roos. WILD anything has many similar problems too. Pork of years ago, you had to cook it to death. Not so these days, you can cook it “pink”. Properly farmed/supplied roo CAN be cooked rare. I do it all the time…and I sure don’t have worms.

November 5, 2015 2:02 pm

Termites , don’t forget the termites. them little fellows fart a lot.

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  nc
November 5, 2015 7:41 pm

You’re right, nc. The world needs termaroos!

November 5, 2015 2:25 pm

A low-methane farting kangaroo-cow hybrid would churn as it hopped and produce butter as well as milk.

November 5, 2015 2:44 pm

I hope to bring in a patent intended to reduce the harm resulting from the cow’s farts that as everybody knows is containing a high percentage of methane. Indeed this highly efficient greenhouse gas may be burnt and converted into carbon dioxide, a much less dangerous greenhouse gas through a simple device placed close to the cow’s anus, with a gas detector that will trigger a piezo-electric spark to set the fart ablaze as soon as it exits.
I am looking for funds to develop a prototype.

November 5, 2015 3:02 pm

Seriously though, in my country the government has comissioned university research for ways to reduce methane from cows and sheep. Havent herd (pun) how they have got on yet though, but I bet the universities are enjoying the budget.

November 5, 2015 3:05 pm

“Beano” is the solution to this stenchesential problem.

Claude Harvey
November 5, 2015 7:43 pm

I have it on good authority that geneticists are hard a work on a “cowroo”. Milking an animal that leaps into the barn rafters may present problems. I designed a cow-fart afterburner years ago, but my research was terminated after it cost my uncle a perfectly good barn. Also lost a couple of cows to low earth orbits, thanks to a “delayed ignition” glitch I could have solved, given more time.

Reply to  Claude Harvey
November 6, 2015 3:46 am

Yes, the main problem with these fart-burning devices is the flame that may be dangerous in some circumstances..
I suggest an exhaust tube made with a flameproof material.

November 5, 2015 9:29 pm

Quite often I think “I wish I’d been better at maths. Then I could have been a scientist instead of a philosopher.”
Then I read “Scientists researching the underlying reason for the low methane content of Kangaroo farts…” and I find it easier to accept my innumeracy.

November 5, 2015 9:44 pm

I will now reveal the true nature of the “Great Green Disappointment.”
These modern cows produce twice the milk they did in the 60’s.

Reply to  Zeke
November 6, 2015 4:50 am

breeding would have been enough
but add BgH and make the cows produce more…and give them crippling arthritis and other problems with hooves n legs..they die early worn out and in pain
thanks to monsanto/ eli lilly posilac and variant names for their crap products.
oh and more milk with a lot more pus from Mastitis, yummy!
and increased antibiotic use to try n combat that.
another fine manmade solution to a problem…that was NOT a problem..till they could make megabucks.

November 5, 2015 10:16 pm

Now if erudition and humor were grass we would have an endless supply of hamburgers and ice cream here.
But these environmentalists know a little more about cows than you do.
Have you ever asked yourself, “How does that bull reach 2,000 pounds in just three or four years? Are they not vegetarians, eating grass and grain? That is a lot of protein in a short time. Also milk has a lot of superior proteins, so where does it all come from?”
The cattle are not only using the microbes to break down the food, but they also then move them to the next stomach and digest the microbes themselves. It is a stunning fact of symbiosis. The bacteria that help the digestion of food in the rumen/first stomach use simple nitrogen compounds to build proteins in their cells. The ruminants then digest the bacteria. This is the source of the proteins in the cow’s diet.
So a change in the stomach microbes used by cows will more likely than not starve the cows to death. They will not reach their full size nor produce the meat and milk they did before the microbes were altered by the environmentalists. And whether this reduces the methane emissions or affects weather patterns on earth I will leave to the people with the proper scientific paradigm to model, but I do know that the destruction of cattle would fit the vegan/vegetarian psychotic manias that the Cannabis Generation attempted to foist on the me.
As the next generation, I hate to have to be the ant at the picnic. But this is a profoundly fiendish environmentalist plot against the bacteria cows digest for protein. And foithermore, only the most spoiled rotten, corrupted generation that ever walked on the face of God’s green earth would ever, ever even think anything like this.

Plan Jane
Reply to  Zeke
November 6, 2015 2:31 am

Spot on Zeke

Reply to  Zeke
November 6, 2015 4:51 am

++++ well said

Steve P
Reply to  Zeke
November 7, 2015 7:37 am

The lead author got his Bsc in 1996. He looks remarkably young for a hippie.

Reply to  Steve P
November 7, 2015 9:56 am

Steve P says, “The lead author got his Bsc in 1996. He looks remarkably young for a hippie.”
He clearly has a very long road in front of him if he ever wants to disabuse himself of Boomer philosophies! It can be done however. All it takes is a decade of life experience and hitting the books for every decade one was under the educational influence of the Cannabis Generation as a youth.
It is a monumental and lonely task to straighten oneself out, but personally rewarding.
So all I am requesting here is this: let’s not all pretend we have never seen science used for extremely negative vegetarian/vegan/organic-only/local only activism before. It’s been going on for decades now. The outcomes will certainly be destructive and catastrophic — but starving cows by altering their rumen bacteria is a truly low and slinking and revolting plan, even for hippies and their fresh-faced followers.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
November 7, 2015 5:10 pm

November 7, 2015 at 9:56 am
Yeah, every time I smell patchouli incense, I recall that famous day-glo poster of the cow’s 4-part stomach that all the hippies had under their black lights as a central fixture in their smoking areas, and the many articles in Rolling Stone about the Kangaroo’s flatulence, but before you get any more carried away with your attempts to blame everything you don’t like on the Baby Boomer generation, just remember, we didn’t have mosh pits.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
November 7, 2015 8:11 pm

November 7, 2015 at 9:56 am
“…it’s been going on for decades now.”
Wikipedia has a long article on The history of vegetarianism, which begins:
The history of vegetarianism has its roots in the civilizations of ancient India and ancient Greece.
While it is true that the Baby Boomers are getting up there, I don’t think we go back quite that far.

Virgil Russell
November 6, 2015 5:12 am

And taxes paid for this. At least it was Aussie taxes.
Sent from my iPhone

Reply to  Virgil Russell
November 6, 2015 6:05 pm

I would propose that it’s not the flatulence of an animal that creates methane, as much as its dung. This is a more continuous source which takes some time to dissipate. Does kangaroo dung not emit CH4 as it rots?

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 6, 2015 10:30 pm

Actually the problem is climate researchers. I could show you a graph that maps the increase in methane and CO2 in the atmosphere against the number of climate researchers. Virtually a straight line. So obviously the climate researchers are causing the increase in greenhouse gasses.

Steve P
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 7, 2015 7:20 am

In truth, it is microbes in the animal’s digestive tract which produce the methane. Apparently, in cows, most of this methane-producing microbial action takes place in the rumen, whose contents are regurgitated as cud to be chewed again.
The question arises: is the cow’s moo also the cow’s belch? If not, could any of the cowboys or cowgirls here provide further information on the cow’s belch, including transliteration into English.

November 6, 2015 10:20 pm

“The best laid plans of mice and men…”
“What do men have to do with it?”, the mice (Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy).

hot country chillies
November 7, 2015 3:37 am

Corr blimey!! Kanga farts? Seriously? These guys are f____n’ nuts!!!
I live on a 20 acre lot that is frequented by the giant jumping mice (nah, they’re cute’n’cudly, them kangas) and I should mention that I am yet to smell them coming, as the dent in the bonnet of my car will attest. In fact, the cows over the road still haven’t curled my nostril hairs in even the slightest way.
When idiots in government are paying other idiots who call themselves ‘syontests’ to examine roo farts, you can be sure that the end of the world is indeed nigh!!!

Steve P
Reply to  hot country chillies
November 7, 2015 7:06 am

Kangaroos are not mice.

November 7, 2015 9:30 pm

I have two reasons why roo is good. Firstly, I have high cholesterol (Actually, it’s just below “normal” now). Secondly, I live with people who have a child who has a product in the arterial tract (Aorta) that was made from material from a cow. So no beef in this house.

James of the West
November 10, 2015 1:51 am

Does soilent green taste as good as cow meat?

%d bloggers like this: