Methane Cycle ignored

older by the day

What I can't understand is looking at the greening at my SFP (or whatever it's called this year). 23% of my farm is in hedgerows the rest is in grass. Now when I was a boy, I was told that photosynthesis in a plant, takes in carbon dioxide and lets out oxygen.

So going by that I must be even better than carbon neutral.

Look lads it's only a joke. It's a lost cause. Never was there as many planes in the sky, never was as much Shiite being bought, produced mainly in the far east. Every mother is driving a jeep. Forget it. The lockdown was a good test to see what was the cause of global warming.

It's all about selling European products to south America and importing their food. The sad part is that it's over population and consumerism is destroying the planet. Economies are measured by growth. Cattle are a scapegoat

Birdnuts

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121736263#Comment_121736263

Natural methane cycles from Wetlands and Ruminants have always been with us. Methane from such sources aren't an issue until something disrupts the system. In the case of wetlands like Peatlands, there immense Carbon sequestration abilties vastly outweighs their short lived Methane releases(Methane only exists a short time before it rapidly breaks down to CO2) which is why it makes sense to restore them as much as possible. Plus they play a major role in natural flood control, drought proofing rivers and lakes, provision of clean water, fisheries and are obvious biodiversity hotspots.

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737560#Comment_121737560

Personally I dont think 50-70 years of vast methane emissions from rewetting is a short period.

Say my name

If methane is people's thing on here. There are bacteria that consume methane directly that live in soil called methanotrophic bacteria.

They live where cattle graze.

amacca

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737494#Comment_121737494

You are assuming I'm posting in bad faith rather than simply just interested in your views on perhaps a related/relevant area(s).....

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737334#Comment_121737334

That's 109.5 kg in a full year or 3,066kg CO²-eq to give it's full multiplier effect.

I see the cow also respires 10kg CO² per day, or 3640kg per annum.

We're heading now for 6,700kg CO² emissions (per cow)??

Why is respiration not added into the calculations?

Padre_Pio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737787#Comment_121737787

Do they negate the methane emissions of the cattle herd?

Or could you encourage the growth of this bacteria so they can negate the methane emissions without negatively impacting something else?

Silverdream

Lots of propaganda and false truths from both sides of the argument. I do believe we should be reducing cattle numbers, not because of the Methane argument but because the amounts we keep are not sustainable without the huge inputs from fertilizers and cheap grain imported from abroad. Ireland doesn't need to be feeding the whole world, for centuries cattle produce only traded to the UK and small areas of France and Spain.

We should produce less, but better quality and in a more sustainable way without Fu8king up the land,rivers and lakes. Trade needs to be regulated, it should not be possible to have agricultural produce coming in from places with unsustainable farming practices like the slash and burn methods of south American producers, or the Chemical agriculture of the US.

The cost of produce needs to be fairer too to reflect sustainable farming practices. Getting 2.5k for a Fat heifer, is that really a fair price for a farmer? What about the supermarket selling 2 Chickens for 10 euro., like you couldn't feed the Chicken for that amount!!

Finally we have the modern menu's, which are often just meat feasts with half the food ending up in the bin. I remember growing up my mother used to do the weekly shop on Saturday after my father got paid on Friday, by Friday the fridge was fair empty, not a scrap was wasted. Nowadays it's not uncommon to see whole steaks gone off and thrown into the bin..

Rant over!!

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737472#Comment_121737472

You're actually correct here but incorrect in your previous post. The ch4 is part of a carbon cycle. Just because it is not immediately available for the plant it is still part of the cycle. Grass to CH4 to CO2 to grass. The carbon cycles through various forms.

Now consider when are you benchmarking emissions to and have ruminant numbers increased in that time frame. If not there is no net contribution to global warming.

The methane is seen as a quick easy way to kick a can down the road. If methane drops but CO2 continues to rise in the short term it may seem like progress is being made.

Water John

I see no problem with farming tackling the methane issue as long as other sources are also tackled. The oil and gas wells that spew it out as a waste are massive contributors. Stabilising the ruminant numbers is a great start. The science is tackling the reduction in methane produced by each animal. Focussed breeding along with inhibitors will have a much greater impact than reducing the herd size by say 10%.

The whole approach must include all the polluters, cars, planes etc. It has to be fair and seen to be fair.

Say my name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737908#Comment_121737908

Very little is known of them and what they're potential is. Answer is the answer to that is not known yet.

The soil is host to pathogens, antibiotics, viruses and we don't know what we do to it what impact that has on the biology.

Water John

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121738257#Comment_121738257

There is a solution in nature to most problems, if only we invest in the right research. Sometimes that needs public investment as private cos are only interested in producing a product that they can make a profit selling.

roosterman71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737469#Comment_121737469

The knowledge you express here, on the last line is 100% wrong. Methane breaks down into CO2 and that is then used by plants. That's the cycle. Methane out from cow, converts to CO2, back into plants, eaten by cow, methane out from cow...

You understand this because here you thank this post saying the exact same thing about the conversion of methane to CO2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121737560#Comment_121737560

Are you trolling or confused?

Water John

Everyone knows CH4 goes back to C02, the problem is while it's CH4, with it's 10 year half life. Is it a problem? If so, what can be done to minimise it?

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121738467#Comment_121738467

That's the issue. Methane has 100 times the greenhouse effect that CO2 does. As mentioned, if it was possible to breed a cow that did not belch methane, it'd be fantastic. However the way the cow's digestive system works makes that an extremely distant pipe dream.

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121738552#Comment_121738552

Maybe not quiet 100?

Any idea why respiration is not counted?

magicbastarder

as the screenshot says, over a 100 year period, methane is estimated to have a 25x effect because it oxidises after 10 or 20 years, so most of the effect estimated is actually spent as CO2. if you lengthen that period, the multiplication factor drops, if you shorten it, it increases. but given the period you pick being pretty arbitrary, the multiplication factor becomes likewise arbitrary. 100 years was probably picked just to have a standard that everyone can use.

however, if you were to compare the GHG effect of 1kg of methane in the atmosphere now to 1kg of CO2, the factor is over 100x.

smallbeef

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121738552#Comment_121738552

Not all methane is created equally. Methane from cattle is derived from cattle eating vegetation, allowing it to grow further and pull down carbon from the atmosphere in doing so.

Here are 2 photos I took while checking a few cattle during lunch.

20240208_112723.jpg

20240208_112707.jpg

Both the same field. The first is actively pulling down carbon from the atmosphere (good). The second is dead vegetation, emitting carbon (bad).

You'll never guess the difference between the two! Cattle graze the first one but have been fenced off from the area on the second pic (fenced about 2 years ago).

Farmers get zero credit in the calculations for the carbon we are sequestering. Its all just one way.

So if we cull all ruminants. Yes we will get a reduction in methane, and a small reduction in greenhouse gases. But as vegetation dies it will no longer pull down carbon, it will start to emit it. So the reduction in GHG's will be a lot less than you think.

Farmers are aggrieved because methane from cattle (which has been derived from pulling down carbon) is treated the same as methane fracked/drilled/mined from fossil fuels. This is inherently wrong. Methane from cattle eating pulled down carbon, vs methane released that was locked up for millions of years. A level playing field is what we want.

Brazil has the most cattle in the world, 225m of 'em, China has 102m cattle. Yet China emits nearly 3 times the methane.

So where is all China's methane coming from? Fossil Fuels of course. You have been diverted by big oil with their years government lobbying and decades of agenda-driven reports/studies/articles. But you keep chasing those cows. AND DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, THINK FOR YOURSELF!

roosterman71

the GWP100 is under serious pressure to remain the go to scale for calculations. GWP* is the updated variant that is most likely to be settled on. Paper on this from 2019 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-019-0086-4

Water John

Small beef, you are largely correct. All methane emitters need to be targetted. Getting rid of ruminants is one of the stupidest ideas. Farmed in a sustainable manner is their optimum use.

Say my name

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121736263#Comment_121736263

180 years of tilling.

http://twitter.com/FarmeyeIreland/status/1755575927864472040

That's some foresight to have in starting a trial and continuing since 1843.

WhichWay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121739033#Comment_121739033

Brilliant, a photos tell 1,000 words. You used two photos but we'll let you away with that

Nicely example smallbeef.

alps

IPCC "Emissions from livestock and manure management"

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:e8a8cadc-5240-4966-9b83-3d59173454d3

Not a mention of respiration..why?

alps

Well looks like the best answer I can get on the respiration is that it's not counted as the only source of Carbon in the exhaled CO² was from the food which had just previously removed the CO² from atmosphere.

So....what is the only source of the Carbon in the methane that the cow burps out?

WhichWay

https://youtu.be/wt6yZKy4a2A?si=-kbpVrFrpD-5mqTC

Brilliant 3 minute video.

Carbon neutral cows

magicbastarder

Brilliant? It's parading its stupidity as insight. 'methane is the same as CO2 because carbon duh' is like saying 'cyanide is the same as water because hydrogen duh'.

alps

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121782817#Comment_121782817

You're back. Any idea why respiration is ignored?

magicbastarder

My presumption would be that it's because CO2 from respiration is immediately available to be reabsorbed by plant growth. E.g. 1kg of CO2 respired by say a horse after eating x amount of grass is removed from the atmosphere when that x amount of grass regrows. Which is not a long time.

Whereas if it's emitted as methane, it's 'trapped' in the atmosphere for 10 or 20 years.

Say my name

There is supposed to be some differentiation from higher ups incoming regarding biogenic methane and the methane/carbon capture cycle.

The money was provided to academics to crucify meat and dairy as a sideshow as they knew the oil and gas industry was going to give no leeway in all the COP talks till finally at the last event people got fed up and tried to get some shade from the oil and gas industry.

Jonnyc135

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121783176#Comment_121783176

Last COP fossil fuels were declared as 'Green transition fuels'. It does look like there will be alot of back tracking on the biogenic methane coming down the line and it is greatly needed.

Also alot of talk in the media about Google, Apple etc watching closely on the Passenger Cap outcome as it heavily linked to growth for Ireland and Ireland their European and Asia base. If this huge corporate lobby power gets it increased passenger cap which seems extremely likely, well the government and the EU can have its shite if it expects the farming industry to reduce by 25% to offset for the 25% gain in passenger numbers.