Steaming cow poo.

54 comments on “Steaming cow poo. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. stunned mullet 1

   2 June 2018 at 12:08 pm

   Nice commentary Bill, you’re right that the article in the guardian is little more than a puff piece filler.

   i must admit I don’t tend to bother with such articles but am finding the articles in scientific publications and the likes of the economist far more informative.
   • Bill 1.1

     2 June 2018 at 12:15 pm

     The study their piece builds from was published in “Nature”. Unfortunately, the full text is behind a pay wall and I haven’t been able to access sci-hub of late – which is what I normally do to access studies that haven’t been made ‘open source’.

     I think the article is more dangerous than “puff piece”. Reducing systemic problems to the level of the individual, and what an individual chooses or doesn’t choose to do, locks out the possibility for effective action.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1

       2 June 2018 at 2:26 pm

       Getting your journals mixed up Bill. It’s in Science, not Nature.

       The lead author, Joseph Poore, goes into a lot more detail in this article.

       Researchers at Oxford University and the Swiss agricultural research institute, Agroscope, have created the most comprehensive database yet on the environmental impacts of nearly 40,000 farms, and 1,600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. This allows them to assess how different production practices and geographies lead to different environmental impacts for 40 major foods.
       • Bill 1.1.1.1

         2 June 2018 at 3:04 pm

         Yup. “Science”.

         Insane tangle of numbers in that linked article suggesting the twin panaceas of “diet change” and “technology”.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1

           2 June 2018 at 3:15 pm

           To be fair, they’re talking about apps that help manage impacts, which already exist.

           The only other time tech is mentioned is in its absence.

           Prof. David Archer (iirc) has stated that he expects “we’re going to burn all the oil” anyway, ie: the final outcome will depend on how much of the coal we also burn.
           • Poission 1.1.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2018 at 4:52 pm

             or the outcome of how little coal is burnt ie clean air policy.

             http://www.iac.ethz.ch/group/climate-and-water-cycle/research/radiation-and-the-hydrological-cycle/global-dimming-and-brightening/_jcr_content/par/fullwidthimage/image.imageformat.fullwidth.1744331090.jpg
2. AB 2

   2 June 2018 at 12:24 pm

   Deep systemic change requires popular movements, collaboration, self-sacrifice and a vicious fight with entrenched business interests. It’s scary and maybe unwinnable.
   Buying a tofu burger rather than sirloin steak at New World is super easy.
   • DB 2.1

     3 June 2018 at 5:56 am

     It is not super easy. Most tofu is from GE soy these days I’d not be caught eating it at all. You know most US citizens test positive for roundup, right?

     http://time.com/4993877/weed-killer-roundup-levels-humans/

     What annoyed me most about animal rights meetings was the amount of animal products (bullshit) they readily swallow. Led by 1 part science 10 parts hyperbole.

     A ‘vicious fight’ is not required with retailers, just stop buying their shit they’ll turn up on your doorstep cap in hand.

     The majority of the plants of the world can’t be eaten by humans. To paraphrase: the majority of energy entering the earth’s system is not available to humans.

     Animals, insects, microbes… convert this energy to other forms. Many of which are palatable to us.

     How we treat these organisms is another fight. One you’ll find many carnivores would join if not for all the hyperbole and bullshit.
3. greywarshark 3

   2 June 2018 at 12:39 pm

   When a journal like Nature gets hidden behind paywall it parallels business interests that only think about profit. I realise they have costs. How can the work they do be circulated when it is for the good of people and the planet, be aired and influence discussion and good decision making for change?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1

     2 June 2018 at 2:19 pm

     To be fair, the article was published in Science, not Nature.
     • Bill 3.1.1

       2 June 2018 at 3:10 pm

       ‘Nature’, like ‘Science’ also only offer abstracts and locks its full length articles behind a pay wall.

       IN answer to greywarshark, Sci-Hub was (probably still is) a good place to find research papers that are otherwise published by journals that limit access.
4. Robert Guyton 4

   2 June 2018 at 12:41 pm

   I wonder if you’ve misinterpreted their claim, Bill:
   “Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth”, if that’s indeed their claim, might be true- what other action could an individual take that would have a bigger effect, do you propose? Taking the bus? Buying an electric car? Burying bags of coal in the garden? By avoiding meat and dairy, an individual <i. might, if they find themselves part of a global movement, have significant effect on reducing their impact on Earth. Anticipating a vigorous reply from you, Bill 🙂
   • Bill 4.1

     2 June 2018 at 12:54 pm

     Their claim –

     “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.

     My argument –

     unless there is an immediate commitment to deep systemic change that allows us to dump fossil very fast and completely, then no amount of “ethical consumerism” or “individual choice” or “global movementism” will add up to much more than a sparrow’s fart in the wind by day’s end.
     • Robert Guyton 4.1.1

       2 June 2018 at 1:12 pm

       Your “sparrow’s” fart, if that is indeed the measure of the effect of “avoiding meat and dairy” might still be “the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth” – that’s my argument, but I’ll not die in a ditch over it, as I agree with you that “unless there is an immediate commitment to deep systemic change…” but there isn’t going to be, is there? In the meantime, let’s practice making difficult changes to our lives; one way or another, we’ll be making them soon enough.
       • Bill 4.1.1.1

         2 June 2018 at 2:14 pm

         Ah, okay. I get you now.

         So what about a road trip of indeterminate distance that involved torching every petrol station you passed (but not before “filling up” when necessary)?

         That would be quite an impact. All of those (numbers from my arse) 10 000 litre holding tanks that would normally get refilled every week ….gone.

         We agree it’s not looking like there’s currently any appetite for making the depth and breadth of changes that are necessary to stop AGW. So maybe (arson aside) the “biggest single thing” we can do is revolt and embrace the notion that burning fossil ought to be about thinkable as chattel slavery. That’s in line with the practice you mention, and just might catch on. Who knows?
         • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.1.1

           2 June 2018 at 4:04 pm

           Bill – burning petrol stations might appeal, but realistically, you’re not going to get a lot of people signing up to your cause and your own efforts won’t amount to much (you’ll get caught). Avoiding meat and dairy isn’t likely to end in arrest, and might contribute to a mass movement with greater effect in the long run. A doable change, like no-meat-n-milk, could feasibly be considered a first step toward the revolution you seek. Maybe, perhaps. I don’t really think so but the article’s claim isn’t ridiculous.
           • Bill 4.1.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2018 at 4:42 pm

             It’s dangerous and pernicious to suggest we’re limited to those acts or actions that an individual can take. And that’s what the conclusions from that study do. We don’t have “a long run”, and are beset by institutional inertia and problems that are systemic in nature.

             Yes, the petrol station wasn’t a serious suggestion – for the reasons you mention as well as the fact I don’t have a car and can’t drive 😉

             Anything that contributes to a sensibility that would condemn the burning of fossil is good and comes with 100% scientific backing.
         • greywarshark 4.1.1.1.2

           2 June 2018 at 5:35 pm

           Bill
           It is unwise to suggest anything so drastic just because you think no sane person would do such a thing. But the world is on an insane pathway now and people are realising it and then feeling desperate, eg going on killing attacks. Arson is going to be our No.1 disaster and fear. Don’t draw it closer by talking about lightly.
     • Grafton Gully 4.1.2

       2 June 2018 at 3:03 pm

       “reduce your impact on planet Earth” and also reduce your risk of getting colorectal cancer, which is high enough now in NZ to justify a sadly delayed bowel cancer screening programme.
       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108955/
       https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/100449793/outrage-over-bowel-cancer-screening-delay
       • Ric 4.1.2.1

         2 June 2018 at 3:37 pm

         thanks for a good link
5. James 5

   2 June 2018 at 1:39 pm

   You’ve clearly done little to no research. Thumbs-down.
   • JessNZ 5.1

     2 June 2018 at 1:41 pm

     +100000000
   • Bill 5.2

     2 June 2018 at 2:28 pm

     Are you in a big room full of typewriters and furry cousins James? If so, well done – today two sentences, tomorrow Shakespeare!
     • JessNZ 5.2.1

       2 June 2018 at 3:35 pm

       You earned this disrespect honestly by calling the claims ‘obvious nonsense’ when it is just as obvious you haven’t researched the claims.
       • Bill 5.2.1.1

         2 June 2018 at 4:07 pm

         If you think that consumerism, by way of individual purchase or “lifestyle” choices can have a major impact on a world confronted with AGW, then you need to take advantage of that “30 Day Money Back Guarantee” and get whoever sold you to courier a replacement thinky thing.
         • JessNZ 5.2.1.1.1

           2 June 2018 at 5:48 pm

           ‘Marco Springmann, a research fellow at the Oxford Martin School’s Future of Food programme, tried to quantify just how much better: he and his colleagues built computer models that predicted what would happen if everyone became vegetarian by 2050. The results indicate that – largely thanks to the elimination of red meat – food-related emissions would drop by about 60%. If the world went vegan instead, emissions declines would be around 70%.
           ….
           Should we all go vegetarian, ideally we would dedicate at least 80% of that pastureland to the restoration of grasslands and forests, which would capture carbon and further alleviate climate change. ‘

           Do I claim this is the only step we need? No. Neither did the article that you decided for some odd reason to call nonsense because it didn’t solve the whole AGW problem by itself.

           http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian
           • Bill 5.2.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2018 at 6:08 pm

             Should we all go vegetarian, ideally we would dedicate at least 80% of that pastureland to the restoration of grasslands and forests, which would capture carbon and further alleviate climate change.

             Here’s the thing JessNZ. Go vegetarian or vegan and restore grasslands and forest – and it won’t be alleviating climate change – the rate at which AGW would be progressing might have slowed (which is a good thing), but it will be progressing unless we’ve also cut fossil from the equation.

             And as it progresses, the expected climatic effects and ecological effects will become more and more severe, yes? And that makes the status of whatever restored lands that much more precarious.

             edit – the numbers.

             Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009).

             https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html

             edit no2. And for some added perspective, emissions today are about 60% above what they were in 1990. So that <20% from livestock….
   • Robert Guyton 5.3

     2 June 2018 at 3:55 pm

     Which part of my argument do you believe reveals that I’ve done “little to no research”, James. And could you please tell me whether you have done more than “little or no research” yourself?
     • JessNZ 5.3.1

       2 June 2018 at 3:59 pm

       Pretty sure this is to the OP, not you?
       • Robert Guyton 5.3.1.1

         2 June 2018 at 4:06 pm

         I’ve personalised the argument, JessNZ. James does that to me 🙂
         • JessNZ 5.3.1.1.1

           2 June 2018 at 4:10 pm

           OK 😀
6. JessNZ 6

   2 June 2018 at 1:39 pm

   ‘The point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to imagine that meat consumption could plummet and fossil fuel use in agriculture could stay steady or even increase off the back of that.’

   No, that isn’t reasonable – it’s wishful thinking from somebody who doesn’t want to change his comfort zone. From all the analyses, and the very first part of the article in question “The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

   Meat and dairy are an extremely inefficient way to produce food, so even if the replacement plant crops continued to use the same industrial farming methods, the greatly reduced amount of land needed to feed just humans (not also feed grain to livestock) would absolutely within a very short time reduce the fossil fuel use. To repeat, this would be the quickest way to reduce fossil fuel use, and no waiting for the government to declare it, although if you paid attention to Green policies… 🙂

   Other calculations compare ‘ideal’ grass-fed cows to plant-based industrial farming to confuse the argument, but that doesn’t change the fundamentals, as we simply don’t have the land available to grass-feed as much meat as people currently eat.

   ‘We currently produce enough calories to feed 10-11 billion people worldwide, however, the majority of this food goes to feed livestock, not hungry people.’

   http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/world-hunger-population-growth-ditching-meat/
   • Bill 6.1

     2 June 2018 at 2:27 pm

     So okay. Meat and dairy accounts for 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gasses. That doesn’t actually mean very much since “greenhouse gasses” in that context includes any amount of neutral emissions and emissions from sources that can never be brought to zero.

     What’s the breakdown/difference in emissions from fossil associated with land use and energy?

     I can’t bring the numbers to mind at the moment, but I know that agriculture (land use) is typically a very distant second in that regard. And the important bit is that those emissions (from fossil) can be brought to zero.

     Meanwhile, to take your scenario to its extreme, we could wipe out livestock, have every person on the planet eat a vegan diet, and temperatures would continue to rise because fossil would still be being burned.
     • JessNZ 6.1.1

       2 June 2018 at 3:11 pm

       The big picture of how to sustainably feed the growing population has been documented in its various forms since at least 1971 Diet for a Small Planet. Trying to play whackamole with the emissions figure as if that were the only point under discussion shows you are more interested in arguing than understanding. Also, animal based emissions (methane) are really not as easy to dismiss as you are pretending.

       Luckily, there’s heaps of research for those who are interested. The WHO talks about it, the UN talks about it , the World Resources Institute – search on sustainable diet and remember it’s their job to look at all of the factors (yes, including emissions) and returning a message so we have a tiny chance for the future.
       • Bill 6.1.1.1

         2 June 2018 at 3:24 pm

         I’ve no argument with the proposition that we can feed the world’s population – at least for now and before we begin losing substantial amounts of agricultural land because of sea level rise (~ 25% of the world’s crop land gone at 1.5m sea level rise apparently, because “deltas”)

         In just about every OP on AGW I’ve done, (and given the idiotic assertions you make about me in your comments, I can only assume you haven’t read them) I make the point that land use emissions need to be reduced by as much as possible.

         I also make the point (often enough) that it’s dishonest not to separate out energy from land use because that allows policy makers and politicians to fudge and propose doing much less around emission reduction than what is necessary.

         I’ll state the obvious again and just for you.

         If we are serious about avoiding the effects of AGW, then fossil related emissions must be dropped to zero as fast as possible, and land use emissions need to squeezed as much as possible. There is no room for holding fossil emissions above zero on the basis they’ve been “off-set” by some land use emission having been dropped, or sink created – not if we’re being serious.
         • JessNZ 6.1.1.1.1

           2 June 2018 at 3:50 pm

           You started by calling the claims nonsense because they don’t seem to address the issue you want to debate, and you said it was reasonable to a believe that even if meat were replaced by plant crops, agricultural fossil fuel use could remain steady or grow. This is nonsense.

           AGW is indeed one factor, along with all the other environmental issues caused by animal farming as in the start of the “nonsense” article ‘…It assessed the full impact of these foods, from farm to fork, on land use, climate change emissions, freshwater use and water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification).’

           I think we need to get serious about all of those, not just emissions. Lack of freshwater could become urgent before AGW effects do.
           • Bill 6.1.1.1.1.1

             2 June 2018 at 4:25 pm

             I called the claims for the nonsense they are because they are predicated on individual choices that ignore the systemic roots of the world’s current problems.

             I said it’s reasonable to envisage agricultural use of fossil increasing or holding steady in some instances where there has been a switch from livestock. Are you confident that in all scenarios of switching from sheep to almonds, for example, there would be a drop in fossil use?

             AGW trumps every other environmental concern that may be out there because its impacts are so wide-ranging. You can change land use to be the greenest of all the green and the effects of AGW has the potential to simply wipe out whatever you’ve created by way of intense drought, flood, dust storm, wind or any combination of those besides whatever other effects are coming our way (new disease/pest vectors, shifted climatic zones, sea level rise etc).

             Deal with AGW and we become incapable of exacerbating many of the other environmental problems we’ve created. (eg intense water use for dairy farming is no longer possible in a world that’s doing what needs to be done to ameliorate AGW – because there is no intensive dairy farming )
7. Tricledrown 7

   2 June 2018 at 3:38 pm

   Vegan or Vegetarians will save the health system $billions obesity diabetes and other diseases would decline rapidly.
   • Ed 7.1

     2 June 2018 at 4:44 pm

     +100
   • adam 7.2

     2 June 2018 at 9:02 pm

     No offence but most of the diabetics I know were either vegan or vegetarian. The majority stopped being vegan and/or vegetarian once they became diabetic.

     So Tricledrown you might wanna back up your assection with some science please.
8. DS 8

   2 June 2018 at 4:06 pm

   Reminds me of the truly toxic idea of Food Miles. Which ignores the fact that it is environmentally better (in terms of emissions) to produce dairy, lamb, and apples in New Zealand and then ship them to Britain, than it is for Britain to produce these things itself.
   • Bill 8.1

     2 June 2018 at 4:30 pm

     If the refrigeration and shipping emissions, plus whatever else, are fudged – then sure, better for all of us if the Shropshire shopper buys lamb transported from NZ than lamb trotted along to the works in Shropshire. 🙄
     • Robert Guyton 8.1.1

       2 June 2018 at 4:45 pm

       Agreed. The “counter to food miles” argument always longed a lot.
       • Robert Guyton 8.1.1.1

         2 June 2018 at 5:10 pm

         “longed a lot”?
         looked a crock.
9. NZJester 9

   2 June 2018 at 5:09 pm

   One way to optimize crop growing as well as animal farming and reduce the carbon footprint would be to build renewable energy powered hydroponic farms for crops. The fertilizer nutrients would be recycled through the system, so large amounts of it are not going into local waterways helping to clean them up. In greenhouse conditions, the crops can be grown all year round with a harvest every day creating a sustainable non-seasonal job that creates a better work environment for employees not having to worry about weather conditions putting a bite into their wage packets. You put the seed in one end and a slow conveyor system slowly transports it day by day from one side of the greenhouse to the other as it grows to be harvested on the other side. That means a steady flow of work and not being stood down a few days needing to wait for crops to be ready.
   Use of solar, wind and other renewable energy sources to power it all reducing carbon use and water waste quite a lot.
   Animals could be feed some of the crops in large grass areas under the wind turbines meaning there would be no need to pump fertilizer on the grass to make it grow faster as you would be supplementing the grass with other hydroponic foods. The cows waste could also be collected regularly and processed for use in supplying some of the nutrients for the growing of some crops. Electric vehicles used for farm purposes another major way to reduce carbon.
   • DB 9.1

     3 June 2018 at 6:24 am

     What a crock. Hydroponics doesn’t recycle nutrients it dumps them and the polluted water regularly.

     If you’re talking about Aquaponics then get facts straight. I got an 18 year old system hasn’t needed cleaning once. John Key that feckless idiot gave someone 50K for the same thing built 14 years after mine. I’ve had skin in this game for a long time.

     You sound like the guy trying to convince me we need LED’s to supplement field lighting.

     No idea WTF he was talking about.

     How we farm needs to change. Your proposed system is a big plastic factory, not a farm.

     Biodigestors. Wetlands. Azolla culture. Functional shelter belts. Mixed forestry. Cover cropping. Mixed pastures and perennial grasses. Water storage and distribution. Alternate power according to local conditions.

     It aint rocket science.

     We have the land, now convert it to more permaculture type systems. Corporate farmers will suffer, people and the land will flourish.

     Once we’ve mixed it up dairy will still be on the table, but also many other products to balance the diet and help reduce overall emissions.

     I agree fossil fuel use is a major contributor. But so are our habits. Buying greenwashed rubbish like (GE soy) tofu contributes to big corporate entities. Planting a garden directly reduces your bills, emissions, food miles. While providing aesthetics, exercise, items for trade, real nutrition…

     A garden will re-engage you with the world, your body, and your community.
     • Molly 9.1.1

       3 June 2018 at 11:18 am

       Enjoyed reading this comment AB.

       Have just completed an assignment on the Aquaculture push by the National government, so your reference to that struck a chord. But primarily, your thoughts on permaculture, diversity, people and gardens. Been out in the garden this last beautiful week up in Auckland, and will spend the wet rainy afternoon sorting through seeds, and watching Gardener’s World on Youtube.
       • greywarshark 9.1.1.1

         3 June 2018 at 11:52 am

         Molly
         There is some great stuff coming forward from commenters here like yourself who know or are learning useful future-facing knowledge. Did you mean AB or DB in your earlier 9 1 1 comment? (It is an indication for the advantage of an actual word that registers rather than anonymous letters I think)
10. Marcus Morris 10

    2 June 2018 at 5:28 pm

    Surely the key statement was:

    “More than 80% of farmland is used for livestock but it produces just 18% of food calories and 37% of protein” –

    I listened to a NZ agricultural scientist talking with Kathryn Ryan not too long ago when he made the suggestion that our use of prime agricultural land for dairy production was not necessarily the best strategy.

    It is a debate worth having especially in the light of the present crisis besetting the dairy industry. Given that fossil fuel use will, inevitably, be a major factor, what practice will give the best fuel to nutrition ratio.
    • Bill 10.1

      2 June 2018 at 5:44 pm

      Land use is a debate worth having. Talking about it in terms of fossil fuel use to nutrition ratios isn’t.

      The science is blunt. To stop AGW progressing, fossil fuel use must drop to zero.

      What types of farming practices and land uses are possible in a world with zero fossil fuel use? And which of those possibilities would entail the lowest GHG emission levels?
      • NZJester 10.1.1

        2 June 2018 at 6:31 pm

        Did you see my comments at 9?
        • Bill 10.1.1.1

          2 June 2018 at 6:42 pm

          And Andre’s link below, which also envisages zero fossil.
    • Andre 10.2

      2 June 2018 at 6:14 pm

      If you’re interested in the idea of nutrition output versus energy input, here’s an interesting trial combining photovoltaics and agriculture on the same plot of land.

      https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/24/combining-solar-panels-agriculture-makes-land-productive/
11. eco maori 11

    2 June 2018 at 8:02 pm

    Audre excerlint link I tryed to convince one person that every Dairy Farms should have solar panels on cowshed roofs it would cost less if Fonterra Backed it well they have a mess to clean up now.
    Bill As for that articular in the Guardian about meat and dairy I read it any intelligent person will pick up that the study on meat and dairy products that the facts have gone through a Prism of someones $$$$$$$$$$$ and bent the facts to suit some people whom have a problem with this type of farming trying to suppress the demanded for meat and Dairy products I wounder why when I read a articular that has would or could it is full of ——– as far as Eco Maori is concerned. Ka kite ano

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS