News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 News 
 Chewing the cud on facts, fats and, er, farts 

Chewing the cud on facts, fats and, er, farts

20 Apr, 2009 11:05 AM
CONFOUNDING the meat-eating issue even further is the environmental impact — land clearing, degradation of habitat, water use and greenhouse emissions — of cattle and sheep grazing.

Damon Whittock, of Meat and Livestock Australia, points out that his is the only industry to have decreased its carbon emissions in the past 10 years: by 4.7 per cent. Admittedly, that's largely because herd sizes have been reduced because of drought and uncertain global markets.

"But having said that, we're actually producing more meat from fewer animals," Whittock says, "which means less environmental impact."

When it comes to water use — the most alarmist of the figures estimate 100,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef — Whittock says it's not that the numbers are wrong, it's the nature of the calculation.

"The 100,000 litres of water was arrived at by calculating the entire amount of water, i.e. rain, that fell on a property. Now obviously cattle don't use every drop of water that falls on a pasture."

Apart from dams, most Australian graziers don't remove water from the system. Abattoirs are another matter, but there are no good numbers on water use in the longer production chain. The MLA has done its own research, though, and while the findings aren't finalised: "It's nowhere where near 1000 litres per kilo, let along 100,000 litres," Whittock says.

Corey Watts of the Australian Conservation Foundation says grazing practices are improving, including revegetation and a halt to land clearing. "But the industry as a whole still has quite a way to go before it's sustainable. It takes up a lot of land in Australia. And like other forms of agriculture it has caused an awful lot of damage to native habitat."

The big issue, though, is methane emissions, an inescapable part of being a ruminant. Cow and sheep burps produce an extraordinary quantity of greenhouse gas: "About 10 per cent of Australia's pollution load, according to the department of climate change," Watts says. "So it's a very big part of the climate change problem."

No amount of best practice can do much about a cow's digestive system.

"So at the moment we advise consumers that probably the biggest and best thing they can do to reduce their ecological footprint is to moderate their red meat intake."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Please stick to the facts. Enteric methane emissions from livestock have a lifespan in our atmosphere of approximately 12 years before being oxidized into carbon dioxide and water, continuing the carbon cycle. For example methane gas emitted during 1997 is now oxidizing and reentering the carbon cycle as pasture growth, animal production (meat and wool), continuing the closed loop of the soil organic carbon cycle. Methane emitted in 1992 when I began my farming career no longer exists in the earth's atmosphere.
Posted by cow farmer, 20/04/2009 3:57:56 PM
When will pollies stop pushing agriculture onto the back foot, admit to the strategic importance of being able to feed the nation, and go all-out against the real GHG culprit -- the burning of fossil fuel? Ruminants have been around since creation -- they're not part of the problem!
Posted by Ruminant, 21/04/2009 8:07:24 AM
I agree Cow Farmer. When will the government wake up and realise livestock do not increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere - only coal, oil, and 'natural' gas are guilty here.
Posted by Doug Frend, 21/04/2009 8:09:21 AM
Cow Farmer: But the methane is continuously emitted isn't it? What about the methane from your cows emitted 5 years ago, last year, last week, today & tomorrow? 1 tonne of methane is the equivalent of 21 tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. The science is uncertain about exactly how long it stays in the atmosphere, but some estimate it could be up to 50 years. Due to the shorter lifespan of methane and it's higher concentration in the atmosphere, if more people reduced or cut-out red meat from today they can make a huge difference. Of course going vegetarian (we still need farmers to produce our food) has an even greater environmental benefit.
Posted by Food4thought, 21/04/2009 8:39:19 AM
There were more animals living on this earth since before man set his big toe upon it. A lot of these animals were grazers so you can't tell me that sheep and cattle are the only producers of methane gas. Industry is the main cause and the burning of fossil fuels and until we seriously look at the alternatives of controlling this without affecting the global food harvest, then we will always have a problem.
Posted by Esme, 21/04/2009 8:55:09 AM
If you really believe that methane production is a problem, then why wasn't the Earth in much more serious trouble from 1500 to 1800? (And before, of course, but let's just stick to those years) when the plains countries of the world had billions and billions of wild cattle and bison roaming up and down for thousands of years? Not to mention the African plains with their billions of antelope, wildebeest and giraffe? All ruminants, presumably all converting pasture into methane on a mind-boggling scale. The numbers of domesticated animals worldwide has never reached the numbers of those animals running wild on the continents. And frankly, the poorly modelled climate predictions - which have consistently failed to take into account other factors, including solar activity - have never inspired me. Climate is, by its very nature, always changing. That is why the successful species on the planet are the most adapatable ones.
Posted by TM, 21/04/2009 9:06:55 AM
Keep thinking food4thought. What if we turn over all our grazing land to wildlife conservation? What if kangaroo numbers double again as they already have done thanks to farmers providing free feed and water they intended for their livestock? What would the car repair bills be? What would the damage to our crops be? What would the fences cost to fence roos out of our crops? What would tbe the cost to our health system for unbalanced diets? Come on get real Aussie! Livestock are a valubale part of our ecosystem that not only help feed us but also make money for us out of useless grass. The grass keeps growing because it is grazed and re-cycles the CO2. Methane breaks down to CO2. Man eats veges AND meat in a wonderful balanced ecosystem! He has to shoot the roos because no-one pays for their feed and they eat the crops and livestock feed. Now if tourism is worth $90 billion to Australia annually and roos help bring the tourist, why can't we afford to fence the roos into our national parks so they don't jump into our cars and eat our crops and pastures? Farmers manage to fence their stock in for a lot less gross return! When are city folk going to take responsibility for THEIR animals and treat them kindly?
Posted by Common Cents, 21/04/2009 9:45:03 AM
I must be getting old but I am becoming increasingly intolerant towards seemingly 'informed' adults becoming lemmings in the 'saving the planet' crusade. It's almost laughable to imagine that government funded scientists are researching how to alter the 'natural features' of the bovine rumen - get a grip! Mr Watts needs a night time job as he obviously has far too much spare day time to create auto-suggestive loopy conspiracy theories about the level of bovine exhaust levels being way to dangerous to the planet. It maybe time to refer to Matthew Chapter 7, verses 1 to 5 so as to allow some semblance of reality and reflection into the debate as to the real-time naughty polluters like Mr Watts fossil fuel burning vehicle, his refrigerator, office and home air conditioner, computer, mobile phone and the atmospheric effect of his consumption of prune juice! So let's all feed ourselves less nutritionally to save the planet - good one Mr Watts!
Posted by Clark Goodwin, 21/04/2009 9:51:03 AM
Keep the cows, plant trees, stop chopping trees down, nationalise the coal industry and petrochemical industry, use fossil fuel where it is most needed not where the most profit is. If the city dwellers are so concerned about gloabl warming, turn the plasma tv off, get rid of the extra tv, turn the heating down, change light globes, have a candle lit dinner with a big fat roast in the middle of the table. God did not put me at the top of the food chain to eat bloody vegetables. Feed me meat. Let's have a lovely clean planet with nothing to eat, yes that makes sense! How about curbing the population, investing in rural communities, it is time for everyone living west of the dvide to seriously think about seceeding from the Coimmonwealth of Australia, then we will see a change in tact, see how much the city dwellers want to pay for imported food with no environmental or health controls.
Posted by the lorax, 21/04/2009 11:39:47 AM
Has anyone measured the methane emissions from the human population? Maybe that's the real problem!
Posted by Maryann, 21/04/2009 12:32:00 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you think tree changers generally have realistic expectations of rural life when they move to the bush?

Yes
(9.8%)

No
(89%)

Other
(1.2%)

Total Votes: 764
Poll Date: 19 April, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...