Cure for bovine greenhouse gas.

You need two spark plugs. Most methane comes out the front.

--Winston

That would give a whole new meaning to 'Set your fields on fire'.

The green police should arrest Ian for suggesting something that will increase CO2 ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Make him shove in the rubber stoppers & connect the hoses to collect all that methane. Hee'll quickly discover a whole new meaning for 'A load of bull!" ;-)

the

it's

rease

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson reveals that he is not aware that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, which oxidises to CO2 (and water) in the atmosphere over a period of a few years.

Ian Field - of course - has failed to notice that there's an even better approach to the problem, which involves persuading the bacteria that the kangaroo uses to ferment its grass to take up residence in the stomachs of cows.

Granting the fairly spectacular differences in the detailed structures of the digestive systems involved, this may take a while, but the kangaroo system does generate a lot less methane.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

o the

ts it's

ncrease

An even more effcetive solution might be to realise there isnt a problem with cow methane.

NT

When they were looking at changing the digestive "flora" in Australian cows they used bacteria from African water buffaloes and ox's. I don't know if that was because they didn't think of kangaroos but I think it more likely that it is because the difference in digestion (a kangaroo has but one stomach and is not a rear bowel ruminantor like a rabbit) means there is no suitable environment for the bugs - ( it would probably work well on a dear though)

o the

ts it's

e'.

increase

I hadn't heard that particular bit of the story. It does make sense.

The version of the story I'd heard suggested that they were well aware that kangaroos didn't generate much methane. The URL's I posted made it clear that there are a number of different ways in which herbivores tackle the task of getting sugars out of cellulose, and I did mention that what worked for kangaroos was not going to work for cows without a lot of adaption. The African water buffalo is a close relative of the cow - buffalo-cattle hybrids get as far as the embryo stage - and their solution would be easier to adapt for cattle.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ble

to the

ifts it's

'.

increase

Any form of greenhouse gas reduction will earn carbon-credits for slowing down anthropogenic global warming. If you are silly enough to ignore the evidence for anthropogenic global warming you may well think that cows generating methane isn't a problem, but if you were raising cows you'd prefer that they digested and metabolised all the feed that you were giving them, rather than wasting some of it by fermenting it to methane, which they can't digest.

The farmers sons that I went to school with weren't interested in reducing bovine methane production for either of these reasons - they were worried about "bloat". If you let cattle graze fresh clover, they could generate fatal volumes of methane in their stomach - enough to compress the lungs and the guts badly enough to kill the beasts.

You could save the beast by sticking a knife through the skin and standing well back while the froth squirted out, but the beasts so treated were never much good thereafter. Spraying kerosene on the clover before the cows ate it seemed to prevent the problem.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The Kiwis believe they will be able to vaccinate against the 'flatulent emi= ssions of ruminant animals' and a study in the UK has found it is possible = to reduce by up to 40 per cent the amount of methane produced by bacteria i= n a sheep's stomach. Coriander and turmeric killed the methane-producing "b= ad" bacteria in the animal's gut while allowing the "good" bacteria to flou= rish. =20 'The sheep loses an estimated 12 per cent of its food energy to methane pr= oduction, resulting in a lower milk and meat yield.' No need to marinate.=20

David:

Maybe - but you would have to obtain her consent first, surely. A dear thou= gh she be, she may object to infestation by water buffalo bacteria.

o the

ts it's

ncrease

derDigSys.htm

You also seem to be out of touch with reality as otherwise you would=20 know that water vapor is an even more potent "greenhouse gas" than=20 either CO2 or methane. So I suggest we pour oil on all our lakes=20 and oceans to prevent water from evaporating and contributing to "global warming", excuse me, "climate change".

-- Marc

Any form of greenhouse gas reduction will earn carbon-credits for slowing down anthropogenic global warming. If you are silly enough to ignore the evidence for anthropogenic global warming you may well think that cows generating methane isn't a problem, but if you were raising cows you'd prefer that they digested and metabolised all the feed that you were giving them, rather than wasting some of it by fermenting it to methane, which they can't digest.

The farmers sons that I went to school with weren't interested in reducing bovine methane production for either of these reasons - they were worried about "bloat". If you let cattle graze fresh clover, they could generate fatal volumes of methane in their stomach - enough to compress the lungs and the guts badly enough to kill the beasts.

You could save the beast by sticking a knife through the skin and standing well back while the froth squirted out, but the beasts so treated were never much good thereafter.

---------------------------------------------------

In one episode of the vetinary drama "All creatures great and small" the farmer celebrated the cure of his cow's affliction by lighting a cigar - the cow shed ceased to exist and that cow also was never much good thereafter.

eable

ty to the

lifts it's

re'.

ll increase

..

There's rather more to the central green argument than that, and the whole argument just doesnt make logical sense.

Such solutions a) arent proven b) the effects of changing gut flora arent fully understood c) cost time & money One can not assume that employing such approaches is the msot desirable option. In fact, from the behaviour of commercial cattle raising, we can conclude that its not what most people think is the best option as it stands today.

NT

rgeable

mity to the

ow lifts it's

fire'.

will increase

ria

s...

res

So point to some place where the whole argument is laid out. Most times when someone claims here that an argument doesn't make logical sense, they turn out to mean that they don't understand the subject.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct, but people wouldn't be thinking about them if they didn't also offer compensating advantages.

Obviously not. the question has to be researched an field-tested.

Wrong. Commerical cattle raising is done by farmers, and most farmer only believe what they've seen some other farmer try and make money out of. The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Resaearch Orgainsation (CSIRO) put quite a bit of money into researching how to persuade farmers to take advantage of the new tricks they'd developed, and the answer was to find the most open- minded farmer in the area and concentrate all your efforts on him (or her).

Commercial practice in cattle raising lags best practice by decades.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ble

to the

ifts it's

'.

increase

Everybody knows that. Some nitwit denialists brings it up here from time to time, and get shot down in short order.

This approach more or less works - for rather specific sorts of "oil"

- on confined bodies of water that aren't big enough for wind to whip up decent-sized waves. Water vapour in the atmosphere equilibrates within about three weeks, and - fortunately - we can't do anything effective to stop it.

If we did, we'd reduce rainfall, mess up agriculture and starve ourselves to death.

Got any more brilliant ideas?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson reveals that he is not aware that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, which oxidises to CO2 (and water) in the atmosphere over a period of a few years.

Ian Field - of course - has failed to notice that there's an even better approach to the problem, which involves persuading the bacteria that the kangaroo uses to ferment its grass to take up residence in the stomachs of cows.

-----------------------------------------------------------

And you of course have failed to notice that I was indulging in a bit of comedy.

You & JT have been whoooshed.

hargeable

ximity to the

cow lifts it's

n fire'.

t will increase

re

few

teria

in

ers...

tures

Best practice as defined by some, perhaps, but only by some. I certainly accept that slowness to adopt good ideas occurs, but from what I've seen the reluctance to adopt what some think good is more often down to good sense.

Criticising farmers is a move that invites scepticism. On the whole they're people with a very good skill set, and better appreciation of the down to earth financials and practicals than those without experience in farming.

NT

ts

What makes you think that I wasn't playing along with the joke?

The concept of transfering kangaroo gut flora into cow's digestive system is at least as silly as hanging solar panels and batteries on a cow, if not as immediately implausible.

Transfering water bufallo bacteria isn't anywhere near as silly, but I hadn't heard about that. Now I have, so the joke has paid off.

You and I may have thought that we were joking, but it turns out that we were brain-storming.

And as a bonus I got another chance to post the Jim-out-of-touch-with- reality-Thompson line, which I like almost as much as Jim likes spelling my name Slowman.

JT may have been whoooshed ...

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

What makes you think that I wasn't playing along with the joke?

The concept of transfering kangaroo gut flora into cow's digestive system is at least as silly as hanging solar panels and batteries on a cow, if not as immediately implausible.

Transfering water bufallo bacteria isn't anywhere near as silly, but I hadn't heard about that. Now I have, so the joke has paid off.

You and I may have thought that we were joking, but it turns out that we were brain-storming.

And as a bonus I got another chance to post the Jim-out-of-touch-with- reality-Thompson line, which I like almost as much as Jim likes spelling my name Slowman.

JT may have been whoooshed ...

----------------------------

He won't have noticed!