Methane is a “more potent” greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So, naturally, in the debate about climate change the topic of methane is always on the table for discussion.A major source of methane is livestock. When livestock digest food methane gas is a bi-product. Washington State University estimates that 250-500 liters a day is emitted. It now appears as though the problem of methane emissions from livestock is addressable without drastically changing the diet of millions of Americans.
The amount of man-made greenhouse gases from livestock is estimated to be anywhere from 5 percent to 18 percent, depending on how the study is run. Regardless, according to the story on CNN online, the potency of methane means that “it warms the Earth around 20 times quicker than CO2.” Livestock farming currently uses 30 percent of the world’s surface.
As Professor Jamie Newbold of the Animal and Microbial Sciences Division, Aberystwyth University in Wales says in a report on CNN online, "I really think it's a solvable problem . . . It is technically solvable. A rare good news story when it comes to climate change. While there is no magic bullet, and no one solution that will work for all animals, we are getting there.”’
There are several new dietary additives that hold the promise of reducing the amount of methane an animal emits during the digestive process. The process could even be a cost-benefit boon for farmers through higher yields and improved nutrition. According to CNN, “[b]roadly speaking the additives either fortify feed with tannins, which are bitter compounds found in many plants and seem to work to limit methane production. Or they use oil, which is easily digested, and seems to have a similar effect.” Professor Newbold points out in the story, methane emissions result in a loss of energy to the animal and increased costs the farmer. “Therefore, cutting methane means a more efficient—and more profitable—farm."
The hope is that once the technology is approved for the use in animals and productivity increases, which could result in emissions being cut by 25 percent. Of course there are other challenges, such as the issue that different livestock in different regions of the world are raised differently. As Newbold states, "[t]he interventions needed on a cattle lot in Argentina will be different to those applicable to grazing animals in New Zealand [.]” Additionally, legislative barriers could appear. For instance, as CNN points out, antibiotics and hormones approved for use in the U.S. are not all approved for similar use in Europe.
At the end of the day, the hope is this research and technology will help curb global warming and help usher in a new era of livestock production that both meat-eaters and environmentalists can find acceptable in a world with finite resources.
To read the CNN article click here.
Posted: 09/14/09
