The Consequences Of Animal Production

The author states that cows are responsible of at least 18% of methane that is in our atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is odorless and colorless. The author also states that carbon dioxide is cleaner than methane. Methane released right into the atmosphere will be a thing of the past, because the National Institute For Agricultural Technology of Argentina has created a backpack that can be placed on cows. That bag has tubes that go into the digestive tract of the cow and collects 300 liters of methane. That is enough energy to be used to power a car for 24 hours instead of being released into the atmosphere. While each bag collects only 300 liters, one adult cow will produce 1000 liters of methane in one day. One day of methane collection can power a car for more than 72 hours or 3 cars for more than 24 hours. Methane can also be used for generating electricity by burning it to produce heat. While methane is harmful, there are still ways to reduce the output of it in the atmosphere by putting it to good

It’s often argued that cows are the main source of our Methane emission, giving a strong argument to reduce, or even stop, our consumption of meat. In all actuality, only about six percent to seven percent of all greenhouse

Since the beginning of mankind, we have become dependent on animal products as a food source. As population increased, so did the production of animal agriculture and its profitability. Unfortunately, it has grown into an industry that is unsustainable for this planet and is demolishing our environment at an astonishing rate. In the academic article, ‘Cowspiracy’ Strips the Meat Industry Down to the Bone, Ford reports the shocking statistic that “even if all utilities were turned off and every fossil-fuel-guzzling system of transportation ceased immediately, environmental damage that results from greenhouse gases would be irreversible…even with humanity’s greatest efforts, the dairy and meat industries will still eventually destroy life on Earth”. As the environment is at its most crucial and devastating point, the major contribution that animal agriculture has on rainforest deforestation, pollution of our water, and global warming becomes undeniable.

No industry has seen the level of dramatic, exponential growth and change over the past three decades as animal agriculture. The present day global society and its accompanying hunger for flesh and other animal derived products has forced the production and husbandry of animals to adapt in order to satisfy this high demand. Modern farming practices are far from the idealized, picturesque image that is frequently portrayed in American media and advertising. Animal production in the United States has been industrialized, and consequently the adverse effects of large scale production and industry are taking their toll in new and devastating ways. A nation which was once saturated with small farms and farmers who supplied to the local

I couldn’t believe what I was watching, it was very interesting. It covered many topics that had to do with the earth and pollution. It mostly had to do mostly with animal farming and how the world wasn’t doing anything at all to help and fix the situation. Cows and pigs would grow on the acres and feed awhile bunch so they could become big. It was so they could gain more meat so when they were slaughtered there would be more meat. The animals are used to gain slot of profit since people tend to like meat.

The federal government should pass a law so farmers and companies can implement dietary strategies to their cattle because it will reduce the carbon dioxide and methane gasses released in the environment. According to Karen Beauchemin and Sean McGinn, members of the Agri-Food Canada Research Centre noted, “methane emitted from the livestock sector contributes to greenhouse gas emission worldwide” (653). With the cattle’s corn diet, which makes the cattle create methane that “is

Compounds like methane may be present in VOC emission. This of course is a potential threat to the ozone and our environment as a whole (10). According to recent studies, current emissions are sparse and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would want to keep it that way. A change in starch breakdown in the rumen can affect the composition of the feces. There could be an increase in feces, which would include excreted modified E.coli and starch products, that could ultimately have an effect on the environment. The EPA would be concerned about this proposal without knowledge of how it will affect air and even soil quality. The EPA can also regulate genetically modified microorganisms like E.coli under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Because of this act our proposal could be limited by two factors. A Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) would need to be submitted at least 90 days before commercial use of the GMO and/or a TSCA Environmental Release Applications (TERA) must be submitted before commercial research and development (11). The EPA and its agencies then have the authority to decide if they will allow the proposal to be enacted. Fortunately, there is no foreseen toxicity and because we are working on a bacterial level, heavy restrictions are not

Cattle are known for their large production of methane. They eat a typical diet of grass and hay. Methanogens help them process these foods, which are high in cellulose. Methanogens are types of bacteria that live inside the rumen of cattle and other ruminants. The microorganisms eat the fiber and other indigestible parts of the grasses and produce methane as a byproduct, in the same general way that yeasts consume sugar and produce alcohol.

A few years ago, I read a Cornell study that changed my thoughts on what it meant to be environmentally responsible. To my dismay, I soon realized that the Cornell study was just one among many other studies which bear out the incontrovertible facts about animal agriculture and yet, even organizations like the Sierra Club seemed to tiptoe around the truth. Clearly, it is not for a lack of evidence that environmental groups fail to be forthright with the public but rather it is to protect their own bottom line and perhaps their viability that they pander to the middle and ignore the viability of the planet. Popular environmental groups expressly avoid the obvious answer to the problem of depleted resources because the solution is too unpleasant for their mainstream donors, Hence, the problem of animal agriculture simply waits on us like the sinkhole of humanity. The spokespersons for the environment attempt to be diplomatic as we circle around the drain. Nonetheless, here are a few of the facts I discovered: 1) The U.S. could feed 800 million people a year with grain that livestock eat. 2) Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than the production of plant protein 3) Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States. 4) Livestock is directly or indirectly responsible for much of the

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas. Even though there is less methane in the air than carbon dioxide, methane is much more absorbent of infrared radiation than carbon dioxide. Methane comes from many places. Large amounts of methane gas come from cattle. The plants and grass that the cattle eat are broken down by different types of microorganisms. Methane is then produced by their digestion process. These cattle belch every two minutes and release methane gas each time they do it. Since one cow emits a half pound of methane a day and there are 1.3 billion cattle in the world, more than 100 million tons of methane are released each year into the air (Bilger 50). Another type of animal that releases methane gas is a

“Methane has been identified as a significant contributor to global warming. It is second to carbon dioxide in contribution to global warming and is said to be 15-20% of all greenhouse gas emissions.” (Yusuf, Noor, Abba, A. Hassan, & Din., 2012, p. 1). The majority of the greenhouse gases emitted in the agricultural sector came from livestock (Yusuf et al., 2012, p. 2). Studies have shown that “cows produce more greenhouse gases than the entire

In the Midwest animal agriculture is part of everyday life. You take a drive down a country road and see fields for growing crops to feed to animals and pastures for cows to graze upon. Even though animal agriculture is quite prevalent around us should we ignore its effects on our environment? Animal Agriculture is a destructive industry because it leads to climate change, the destruction of land and water, and has created a society blind to animal abuse and slaughter.

The impacts of livestock on global climate change are important to the health of the ecosystem because it causes the average global temperature to increase. Livestock contributes to the majority of methane emitted into the atmosphere because of the feces it produces. The growing population increase is not helpful to this matter because as a result, a demand of food arises. This demand for food also includes the demand for livestock because it is appropriate for the human diet. “Meat production is to double from 229 million tonnes in [2000] to 465 million tonnes in 2050” (McMichael et al. 1259). The methane emission rate is bound to increase because it is “dependent upon the population size of the [livestock], their productivity, and [handling system]” (Jose et al. 3).

When NOP was supplemented at 8 and 16 mg of NOP/ g of DM in vitro on an alfalfa hay and oat (60:40) diet using sheep rumen fluid in a batch culture, there was no effect on total gas production or total VFA concentration; however, there was an 86 and 95% reduction in CH4 and a decrease in the acetate: propionate ratio (Martínez-Fernández et al., 2014). Similar results were observed by Romero-Perez et al. (2015a) in vitro on a 60% barley silage, 35% barley grain, and 5% supplement diet using beef cattle rumen fluid in which there was no effect of the inclusion of NOP (supplemented at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg of NOP/ g of DM) on total gas production, but there was a 76, 85, and 86% reduction in CH4 emissions, respectively. This study also observed an increase in H2 production of 159, 205, and 218% with increasing inclusion rates of NOP. However, although total VFA concentration was not affected, there was a reduction in the molar proportion of acetate with the highest NOP inclusion (2 mg of NOP/ g of DM) with no effect on

This study established a model in cattle whereby methanogens were directly inhibited in a dose dependant manner and the subsequent responses in rumen microbial metabolism were evaluated. The three levels of CCD, low, medium and high, reduced CH4 production by approximately 14, 37 and 55%, respectively with both diets compared to the control period, and feed intakes were not affected. Conversely H2 expelled by treated animals showed a dose-dependent increase as CH4 decreased. A similar inverse relationship between CH4 reduction and H2 loss has been reported in dairy cows treated with nitrate or 3-nitrooxypropanol, and goats fed the CH4 inhibitor BCM (Mitsumori et al., 2012; Hristov et al., 2015; Veneman et al., 2015). However, importantly this study showed that greater amounts of H2 (1.7 – 2.9 fold; g/kg DMI) were expelled in animals supplemented with the hay:concentrate diet compared to the hay only diet. Furthermore the amount of H2 expelled in the CH4 inhibited animals was lower than the predicted amount of H2 not used for hydrogenotrophic CH4 formation (4 moles of H2/mole CH4). This suggests that significant amounts of H2 were redirected into reduced end products and perhaps microbial protein. Interestingly the rumen microbiota in the roughage hay fed animals appeared to utilise more H2 that was available from the reduction in CH4 formation than the hay:concentrate fed cattle, possibly due to the slower fermentation rate of the hay diet compare with the