Talk:Cattle

Environmental impact

This is all worded in quite an anti-meat-eating way. Horses are counted as cattle. The examples, references and statistics given all assume that beef is reared intensively (which certainly can be environmentally damaging), and other methods are not considered. However, much cattle-keeping around the world is done in traditional ways, with no fertiliser, no grain-feeding, no additional water etc. Traditional beef rearing of this type can just as easily be regarded as an environmentally friendly way of growing food on land which cannot be used for other crops. The section also ignores the positive effect that livestock-keeping has in mixed farming systems, for example by reducing the need for artificial fertilisers.

The negative impacts given as being from cattle are perhaps more properly regarded as being one of the many impacts of intensive farming more generally.

Need to make it clear where referring to intensive beef rearing, and give alternative point of view.

Richard New Forest 15:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps some reasonably accurate statistics would be useful here, such as a summary of data relating the percentage of total worldwide production in each category; in particular, intensively (feedlots, right?) raised cattle versus traditionally (free range, family farms, etc.) raised cattle. Rough numbers shouldn't be terribly difficult to locate. 65.112.197.16 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a section with this title, but it doesn't need all the detail that was in what was reverted, and the language should be made more encyclopedic.Bob98133 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some of the references, and for instance as far as methane emissions, it is actually the quality of the forage and balance of nutrients which are the critical factors. So in fact, these could be more easily controlled in an intensive farming situation. But yes, the section could use some rewriting. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Much copy editing and removal of POV or unsourced material has been carried out. Would someone please look at this section and note any passage{s} that are other than neutral. We should improve and get this tag off. Cewvero (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

the statement "the methane gas produced by livestock is a significant contributor to the increase in greenhouse gases. Horses are counted as cattle" was contributed by an advocate IMO. A neutral statement would be to say that researchers studying the topic have cited human activities (such as cattle farming and growing rice) as a possible problem by essentially converting CO2 to methane, even though a net increase in atmospheric carbon is not occurring. That's a mouthful, and needs editing. But it would seem to be common sense that the impact of cattle putting out methane has really an unknown effect as to degree, thus significant contribution is claiming something unknown, demanding at least a reference. PS: there is a reference, sorry; but I still say significant contribution is claiming something unknown. I checked into the reference and it does not support the claim that cattle contributions are known to be significant Carlw4514 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Carlw for the above insight, which was totally on target. I have found a new source and used a direct quote to establish degree of significance. Then i gave a more neutral interpretation of the Weart research with an edit there. I also caught another POV word and altered it. By the way i didnt write any of the original text for this section; i am just trying to contribute to the factual basis and NPOV here. Any other POV areas that need addressing in this section? cheers. Cewvero (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two concerns about this section: One, the first sentence is factually incorrect as the FAO says that "livestock" accounts for 18%, not "cattle farming". Albeit, cattle likely make up the majority of the rumanent methane producers (cattle, sheep, goats, horses, bison, etc.) the FAO paper referenced doesn't spell out that fact quoted. Secondly, the picture caption in the corner of the section appears - at least to me - to contain author bias. The quote: "Cattle - especially when kept on enormous feedlots such as this one - have been named as a contributing factor in the rise in greenhouse gas emissions." Both the words 'especially' and 'enormous' point to bias without backing of facts nor references. There opposing evidence that suggests that cattle fed on grain rations emit less enteric methane than when fed on grass (Source: L. A. Harper, O. T. Denmead, J. R. Freney and F. M. Byers "Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle" 1999). I would suggest that the picture caption be retitled to "Cattle have been named as a contributing factor in the rise in greenhouse gas emissions" unless an added references can explain the current picture caption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.46.8 (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the emissions question should be cleared up before this is changed. Your 1999 source seems a bit outdated compared to recent findings. Maybe something more current and accessible would be helpful in determining whether "especially" is justified. Agree that "enormous" is hard to qualify and only adds info if the size does affect amount of methane produced per cow. I have no idea. I guess a ref for that would be good too. Bob98133 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have any more recent findings to compare to I'd be happy to take a look. I haven't been able to find anything which is more relevant and recent available in a peer reviewed journal. If 'enormous' is hard to qualify I cant see how it can be included without any reference or discussion on its basis. Looking at beef emissions per head or per kilo, sources seem to point to a reduction in emissions when grain fed due to A) the lower emissions per day when feeding on grain, and B) the reduced number of days on feed, relative to grass fed animals. The first point is clear (from a biology stand point) that lower quality roughage and grass allows methanogens to emit more methane compared with grains. What is less clear is how much of a difference there is but grass has more emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.46.8 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

i dont think cows should be eaten. they kill themm very cruelly and the factorie farms make toomuch pollution. if al gore wants to save the planet, he shouldnt eat cows.Bazookafox1 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cow image

This image would make a great addition to the article. Does anyone know the photographer/copyright status of it? Bastie (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The current image (Swiss cow) is a very large file, a lot of which is not cow. The contributor should consider cropping it, especially vertically. 164.144.232.10 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cattle Taxonomy

How come on Wikipedia it says that cows are a separate species from aurochs, when it has been known for at least 30 years by animal experts that cattle are subspecies?. I would like it if Wikipedia was more correct. Please respond if your interested because i think it is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Polymelia

I have added a photo of a grown steer here that has 5 five legs. A front on photo has also been uploaded to commons. Should the photo or a link be included? Cgoodwin (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cow's DNA Sequence Reveals Mankind's Influence Over Last 10,000 Years

This is an article that someone with permission to edit may wish to consider including as a link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042303453.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.13.195 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed the Yahoo article on this news story just minutes ago and now I saw your post. I'll attempt to put this into the article. Dionyseus (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish link please?

The list of languages ought to link to the Irish wiki (link - ga:bó ). As an unregistered IP, I can't do this myself.

Thanks in advance, The Randomly-assigned IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.95.59 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! Not much article at the other end though, better get writing! :) Franamax (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A call for standardization of ISO for.....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+cow&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+cows&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+cattle&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Aspergillus+fumigatus+disease&btnG=Search --222.64.223.101 (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

How come this isn't located at Cow? Rocket000 (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Cows are female cattle. Cow redirects to here. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought we go with singular names. Rocket000 (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cattle, colloquially referred to as cows..." Rocket000 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Been much discussion on this previously. The problem is that there is no singular for "cattle" other than gender-specific "cow", "bull" and "steer" or "ox". Montanabw^(talk) 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Links please. It's not that I care about the title or not trust you, it's just that I looked for a discussion about it before posting and didn't see any. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably need to check the history of the former cow, bull, etc... I forget the details, I just remember the discussion. Maybe check article history here to see where there may have been a merge. Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Some detail: First, god, the vandalism! Makes a history search a real PITA! Second, note Cow (disambiguation), yet bull is also a disambig. Note too the "mass noun" discussions above. Then note the cow article was merged and/or redirected here multiple times, notably edit of November 4, 2005. There IS a separate article on Oxen, note discussion earlier on this page, and that article appears to focus on their use as a working animal. Going to take someone who cares more than I do to dig further. All I could find on the topic was here. If someone really wants to argue about this again, I suppose consensus can change, but I really doubt it's going to and it's not worth the waste of bandwidth. This article already says "cattle, colloquially known as cows" and "cow" redirects here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If the question is about using a plural term as the article title, this is standard with any plurale tantum and should not be a worry: see for example Binoculars, Trousers, Glasses etc. If the question is about whether "cow" is a more widely used term, then I agree with MontanaBW that the current lead para covers it. "Cow" would in any case lead to potential confusion as it also has a more restrictive technical meaning (adult female) leading to doubts about where to find "bull", "steer", "heifer" etc. As MontanaBW says, this has all been discussed extensively before. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is a bit of vandalism on this page ("Cattle, colloquially referred to as cows, are domesticated ungulates, a member of the subfamily Bovinae of the family Bovidae. THEY REALLY LIKE www.graypickles.com!!!!"), but I have no interest in getting an account here and as an anon I'm not allowed to edit the page, so... I can't do anything about it. 96.229.70.221 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. An account is free, you know... Richard New Forest (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Word origins section

Seems there is a small editing dispute over if a word origins/etymology section is needed, and if so, what it should contain. Anyone with a comment, best we bring it here and resolve it. I favor keeping these, wiktionary isn't always in line with wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is about the words not the things, but the history of the words is closely associated with the history of cattle themselves (as chattels etc), and isn't the material rather long and complex for Wictionary anyway? The Wiktionary article does cover some of the material, but in much less detail. I think keep it in. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My thinking as well, but others seem to disagree. I did restore the colloquialisms also, sourcing "critter," (the one I know), the others probably need sourcing, too. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heifers and Cows

{{editsemiprotected}} The article states "A young female that has had only one calf is occasionally called a first-calf heifer." In Ireland (and likely the UK as well, but a UK farmer can confirm that) a female that has has given birth once is a cow-heifer, and is properly referred to as a cow when she has had a second calf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Registar (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 August 2009

In my experience (in the UK) "heifer" with no other qualifier or context is a female who's never had a calf (I have one who's eleven years old!), and once she has a calf she qualifies as a cow, with no intermediate stage – the UK government also uses this definition in formal contexts (such as when the numbers of heifers and cows on a farm have to be entered on forms). However, in the context of a herd of cows and calves, a contrast is often needed between a first-time mum and a more experienced cow, and the term heifer is then still used (for example: "that one's a heifer but she's doing her calf well"). I've never heard the term "cow-heifer", but I think most British farmers would work out what is meant by it. I'm also not sure if we actually use the term "first-calf heifer", but the meaning of that would be clear enough too. There may of course be other regional usages I'm unfamiliar with. If we can find a ref for "cow-heifer" it could be added to the article. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for contributing. I agree with RNF that this would be an interesting fact to add if it were sourced and worded well. A use of the expression in a newspaper or a trade journal might be enough, but ideally the source should make the claim that cows in this situation are sometimes called cow-heifer. Regards, Celestra (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable link destination

In the section about domesticated cattle, there is this sentence: "Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations and hoof care..."

The word "dehorning" is a link that brings you to a wikipedia page about Horns, which surprised me. When I clicked it I was interested in learning about dehorning, but I had to do a search page for myself (which was problematic as entering "dehorning" did not bring me directly to the article). As there is already a link elsewhere on the page that leads to the Horns article, I think the link should be changed to the Dehorning article.

I would do this myself, but I don't know how and I'm not really willing to search through wikipedia helpfiles to figure it out. I'm someone who comes here to learn, not to edit the articles. I fear if I got into that habit it would become an obsession and I'm avoiding falling into that. I'd just like to point this out to someone who considers his or herself an editor. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.120.130 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Try it now. Eeekster (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can a cow be a boy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.169.28 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bos

This page contradicts with the page Bos, because that article says that B. primigenius is extinct and modern cattle are B. taurus, while this article says that modern cattle are B. primigenius and B. b. taurus is one of two subspecies. Which is correct?--Nathan M. Swan (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both... Two alternative arrangements are accepted. Firstly Bos primigenius, with subspecies B primigenius primigenius, B primigenius taurus and B primigenius indicus. Alternatively these are given species rank: Bos primigenius, B taurus and B indicus. See [1]. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead Picture too Racy

This is like putting a picture of Heidi Klum at the head of the "Woman" article. Use a generic representative cow in a generic representative farmer's field--granted we all do enjoy the titillation, but this sexy moo-monster here in is pushing things too far for a serious article.--137.99.95.33 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Lead photo is fine. If generic representation of average cow were used it would likely be in extreme confinement or feedlot. I don't understand Heidi Klum reference or why this picture would be too racy. Bob98133 (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think User:137.99.95.33 may be having their little joke. It's a fine picture showing a lovely cow, and illustrates the article very well. I do have a bull or two who'd find her expression very inviting, but I think most of us humans can resist her lovely eyelashes perfectly well. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Bossy's safe there on the lead and can chew her cud in peace. Out here in Montana, we claim Wyoming is the land where men are men and sheep are nervous, but NO ONE worries about the cows -- in either state! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Env impact, again

I'm not sure I'm convinced by the env impact section. The report itself says (exec summary) that they produce 9% of CO2, but that is mostly from deforestation William M. Connolley (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And "they" are "livestock" or sometimes "ruminants". It's not especially clear what is attributable to cattle and what comes out of the several other poop machines in the modern eatery - sheep, chicken, pigs, etc. At least last time I read it. And somewhere or other is a report that indicts cattle fed poor fodder and/or grazed on poor land for just as much excess meth emission as feedlot cattle fed a grain-heavy diet. This is the remains of a battle from a year or two ago, a pro-farmer vs. anti-feedlot faction set up camp for a while. Franamax (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Heifer

"A young female before she has had a calf of her own[12] and is under three years of age is called a heifer (pronounced /ˈhɛfər/, "heffer").[13]"

What's a young female before she has had a calf of her own and is over three years of age? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Once she is too old to be called a heifer, she is just a cow. The change in terminology does not coincide with her birthday, but is influenced by her appearance and condition. If she still looks young and vital like a heifer should, she likely will be called a heifer for some time during her fourth year if she still has not calved. —Stephen (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what technical British usage would be. A female who has not calved will remain a heifer indefinitely (we have one of 12 years old!). This is the definition used by the UK agriculture ministry – although in looser contexts such an older animal would very likely be called a cow, if only because it's not necessarily obvious to the eye whether she's ever calved. If I wanted to distinguish one from a younger heifer I'd probably call her a "mature heifer" or something similar. Does that ref support the "under four years old" definition? If not, is there another for it? Richard New Forest (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)~

A heifer has been defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as: "a cow that has not produced a calf and is under three years of age" - older females are known as cows. Sometimes, too, they classified as (females) showing not more than 6 permanent incisors.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's some from the USA:

1. Purdue University (East coast, USA) uses the same: "A female of the cattle species less than three years of age that has not borne a calf."
2. The various online dictionaries say some version of "A young cow, especially one that has not yet given birth to a calf."
3. The Cooperative Extension Service is sort of the "official" voice of agriculture (next to the USDA) and one state-level extension agents has answered the question as follows: [2] (Idaho extension agent) "I don't know if we have a definition when she is consider a cow and not a heifer, but this is my classification: A female bovine at birth is called a heifer calf. If she is retained as a potential female that will be part of the cow herd, she is called a replacement heifer. After she has given birth to her first calf -- usually at about 2-years of age -- she is called a cow."

My question there a separate term anywhere for a "barren" cow..i.e. one of obvious inferility? Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any term to describe infertile female cattle unless they have been spayed or are a freemartin.Cgoodwin (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamburger? :) Although Richard NF proves me wrong just above, domestic cows either reproduce or get eaten for a living. Franamax (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, our herd is unusual, because one of its main uses is conservation grazing. Non-breeders are useful for that (especially for rough sites where a calf might be at risk), so we generally keep them – mature heifers and also cows who've given up calving. In a conventional beef or dairy production system yes, these would certainly be culled and eaten, and historically they would have been too – but probably commonly used for draught first, as male oxen were. Interestingly that old heifer I mentioned has developed a shape quite like a male ox (and she's definitely a heifer not a freemartin). A non-breeder in Britain is generally called a barrener.

Until a few years ago the UK government had a subsidy scheme for suckler cows: it paid out for cows but you could only claim up to a certain proportion of heifers. They kept strictly to the calving-only definition for this with no reference to age. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hamburger! LOL! Richard is not alone, there's an animal rescue place here in beef country that has been known to occasionally take in the occasional pet cow someone got so attached to that they didn't want them to go to the packing house. They only have one or two, but... Anyway gang, I guess it's fair to say that if a heifer gets to three with no calf, Franamax is right, no need for a term because it occurs so rarely... (speaking of rare, ummm, rare steak...ummm...yum...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Carbon cycle

Can some recognition be given to the fact that cows eat grass? grass absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows, 25 tons of CO2 absorbed per hectare of grass [3]. It is an important input into the environmental debate. We need some awareness of the Carbon Cycle as it applies to cattle. It's not as though they are burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2 that was laid down in enormous quantities millions of years ago. The word 'sustainable' comes to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not as simple as that. Firstly, yes, the grass does absorb a lot of CO₂ as it grows – but this is soon released again, either by respiration of the cattle (most of it), or by our own respiration once we've eaten the cattle. Secondly, grass is commonly fertilised with nitrogen fertilisers derived from oil, and fossil fuels are also used for making hay or silage and then transporting, storing and processing the meat: therefore there is a considerable fossil fuel input.

Considerable? please give some reliable facts to allow a comparison to be made. Perhaps the suggested carbon input from fossil-fuel used in the farming is negligible compared to the carbon absorbed by growing the cattle-feed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are all facts already – you must mean reliable refs for them. Not sure where to find those, but this is basic carbon cycle science and there must be text books stuffed with this material.

As I've said, there is no net carbon absorbed by growing cattle feed, so any fossil fuels used can only be significant in comparison. Whether the total amount of fossil fuels used is significant compared with other fuel uses depends on how intensive the grass-growing is. Cattle forage and fodder can be grown with virtually no fossil inputs – for example in extensive systems grazing natural habitats (as it happens, how my own farming is done...). It can also be grown using intensive methods, with heavy use of fertiliser and cultivation to produce short-rotation grass leys, grain, maize silage etc. I know that such arable techniques when used for human food can use as much or more fossil energy than they produce in food energy. Probably not quite so much for cattle feed (as cattle eat more of the plant than we do), but still very significant indeed. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are facts it should be possible to quote references. Opinions do not become facts by being stated forcefully, but I agree there is no net carbon absorbed by growing cattle feed if it is fed to cattle. By the same token there is no net carbon released into the atmosphere by the process either. That was my point - it's a cycle and therefore sustainable. Farmers and others may choose to use fossil fuel because it happens to be the cheapest alternative at present, but it is not an essential component of cattle farming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Facts do not cease being facts just because they are not reffed! I hope I'm not only offering opinions, but trying to spread knowledge... Yes, refs should be possible, but I'm afraid I can't think where to find them (I learnt all this far too long ago!), and I haven't time to look: someone else will have to do it. I will have a think about it though.

Yes, you're right: all else being equal (and leaving aside methane production), cattle farming itself will be carbon-neutral. Intensive cattle farming methods are not by a long chalk, and nor are clearance of forest or drainage of bogs for cattle farming or indeed for any other reason. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On methane, it's a fact that cattle produce it and that it is a greenhouse gas. Another fact is that it decomposes into CO2 and water in two years. Current information is that a cow produces 0.3 to 0.5 kg of methane per day, equivalent to 6-10 kg of CO2 in greenhouse effect. The cow consumes 7 kg of carbon per day in eating grass, which is the carbon contained in 25 kg of CO2 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We ALL produce methane, in people we Americans call the production of digestion-related methane a "fart." More to the point is the difference between cattle allowed to live and eat on grass the way cattle are biologically designed to live and eat, which they have done since the species evolved into its present form, versus the role of artificial feedlot operations and a heavy corn-based diet, which is not entirely healthy for the cattle (to put it mildly), causing digestive issues (and yes, more cow farts, if you will). Just like people who eat nothing but, say, potato chips and beer -- gain weight, get gassy, produce more methane, contribute noxious emissions... The point is that the cow itself is not inherently a problem, it's the choices humans make to create concentrated, unhealthy, artificial situations to fatten cattle for market that create not only increases in methane due to unhealthy feeding, but also creates water pollution due to feedlot runoff, and is no doubt contributing to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria due to the presence of drugs in cattle feed to ward off the inevitable sickness that would otherwise occur when cattle are forced to live in such conditions as the typical industrial feedlot. OK, end of rant. Now back to lurker mode. Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well of course it's human use of cows that creates the problem, if we had no compelling use for them there would be far fewer loafing around. The problem boils down to the fact that we like to eat meat and there's a lot of "we" on the planet, so we need a lot of meat. The methane issue is a bit of a red herring given its relatively short half-life - there is simply a standing inventory of methane being continuously converted to CO2, only the size of that inventory changes with husbandry practice and number of cows. Corn-feeding and grazing on poor fodder both increase the methane inventory, but over time cause no "accumulation".

The real issue is the trophic conversion ratio, or in other words, how much resource is required to produce a pound of hamburger multiplied by the number of pounds of hamburger we all want to eat - combined with the profit incentive. Cows grazed on quality grassland will indeed be carbon-neutral over time, but that's not how the world works. Instead, intensive farming practices are used and almost all these consume fossil fuels in the process. Even the need for hay in winter is going to force you to put diesel into the tractor in summer. Franamax (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It does not 'force' you to put diesel in the tractor, that is a choice you make based on the current glut of cheap oil sold at low prices :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Copied discussion

See below for related discussion which I had not got around to copying from my user page, covering the above points in more detail, and also the effect on atmospheric methane. The discussion arose after this diff and preceding edits. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

“ Hi. I've put a citation-needed marker at this page. I'm not convinced that statement is true. I'd like to know if some reputable journal has published it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is basic carbon-cycle science, and I doubt if anyone has bothered to publish it as such in a journal, though no doubt there are many textbooks which explain it.

Plants absorb CO₂ and turn it into biomass. Animals (or fungi, bacteria, fire etc) ultimately turn that biomass back into exactly the same amount of atmospheric carbon. There is only net sequestration of carbon if the biomass of the system increases over time. This means that if you grow a field of grass, mow it and feed it to animals (then of course ultimately eat the animals), there is no net sequestration: the operation is carbon-neutral (assuming no fertiliser or tractor-diesel). If however you fence that field and allow it to develop into forest, the biomass increases (trees contain more carbon per hectare than grass-plus-cattle) and there is net carbon sequestration. If you cut down a forest and grow grass, the grass does turn CO₂ into biomass, but there is a net loss of carbon because the carbon from the trees and forest soil is now in the atmosphere. (For simplicity I am counting the carbon stored in soil or peat as biomass here – a peat bog can sequester even more carbon than a forest.)

The point made in the text is that (as ruminants) cattle turn some of the carbon from plants into methane instead of CO₂. The process of growing plants and feeding them to cattle is therefore carbon-neutral, but not global-warming-neutral: it has the net effect of turning some atmospheric CO₂ into the much more globally-warming atmospheric methane, thereby increasing the total effective global-warming effect of the atmospheric carbon.

The argument does have weaknesses, as it ignores some alternative outcomes if the cattle were not there – for example they could be replaced by wild ruminants (or, for example, termites) which also produce methane; some methane is also produced by soil microbes. However there is no doubt whatever about the existence of the effect – do we really need a ref for every basic science fact? Richard New Forest (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The two alternatives are to have cows eating grass, or to leave the grass where it is. Surely leaving the grass where it is sequesters the carbon, while having the cows eating the grass alters the balance in some way. Perhaps you could make the argument that if cows eat grass, some of the carbon from the grass stays sequestered in the form of leather/beef/jelly/baby cows, and the grass stumps are free to grow back, thereby storing even more carbon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What we must consider is the total mass of the carbon in the system at any one time.

If nothing eats the grass it will grow tall and eventually reach an equilibrium. There will indeed be a somewhat greater biomass of grass, but once equilibrium is reached, there will be no net sequestration – the grass will rot or be eaten by caterpillars, grasshoppers, woodlice etc as fast as it grows. The standing biomass here is the weight of the carbon in the grass and in those various animals.

If grass is eaten by cattle, the standing biomass is the mass of the carbon in the grass, the living cattle and in any cattle products not yet eaten or discarded. Yes, there is sequestration into the grass and then into bodies of the cattle – but only until that biomass is released again into the atmosphere. This will happen pretty soon for edible products, when we use them for our own respiration. Some products such as leather do stay sequestered for longer, but even these are eventually discarded and rot back to CO₂. It's not correct to say "the grass stumps are free to grow back, thereby storing even more carbon". It is not the sequestration itself that stores carbon, but net sequestration – which only happens if there is a gain in total mass of carbon in the system over time: it must be stored somewhere.

Stable agricultural ecosystems do not generally have a net gain in biomass, so they do not achieve net sequestration. In our example the biomass in the grass is mostly released almost immediately as energy to power the cattle; some is released when we eat the edible products and some when the leather rots, plus of course what we have incorporated into our bodies as we grow is eventually returned to the atmosphere when we die. Only if we stockpiled the grass or the cattle products permanently would there be permanent sequestration.

Again I'm ignoring systems such as those involving carbonate rock, peat and marine snow – these do build up long-term carbon stores (the last two are of course where the fossil fuels coal and oil come from, so they can be very long term stores). Such net carbon-storing systems do not generally include agricultural ones – many of those in fact have large net losses of carbon, for example from clearing forest to make pasture or oil palm plantations, or draining peat which then oxidises.

It is true that a lot of this is widely misunderstood. For example, it's common to hear phrases such as "the rain forest provides x amount of the world's oxygen" (remembering that net O₂ production is exactly equivalent to net carbon sequestration). This would only be true if the rain forest was accumulating carbon – but most stable ancient forest rots or is eaten as fast as it grows. Forests do however provide a precious store of standing carbon which is released when the forest is cleared – a frighteningly large proportion of anthropogenic CO₂ comes from forest and peatland clearance, and we should be as careful to preserve such systems intact as we should be to leave fossil fuels safely in the ground. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

”

These are interesting and perhaps important opinions and I wonder if there are any facts to back them up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See reply above. Can we keep discussion there please? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)