Keep Drinking Organic Milk: It’s Making a Difference

Organic farming is better for the environment than conventional farming: that much is already well known. But no one has actually put a number on just how many pounds of destructive chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been avoided thanks to a percentage of consumers choosing to buy organic food: until now.

The Organic Center, a non-profit based in Colorado, created a calculator that helped them determine that 40 million pounds of fertilizer was avoided in 2008 thanks to organic milk production in the U.S. The organization hopes that its Microsoft Excel-based calculator will be used by consumers, farmers and food companies to get an idea of how big an impact switching to organic can have.

From GreenBiz.com:

The 761,000 acres of organic feed cropland or organic pasture also dodged the use of 758,000 pounds of pesticides. Cows also given 1.7 million fewer drug treatments, including antibiotics and hormones.

There were roughly 120,000 milking cows on organic dairy farms in the U.S. last year, according to the Organic Center.

“This calculator gives us the means to uniformly measure the extent to which organic dairy operations prevent toxic materials from entering our air, water, soil, and in some cases, our food and drinking water,” Charles Benbrook, the Organic Center’s chief scientist, said in a statement.

Curious about how the calculator works? Check out the Organic Center’s report, “Shade of Green: Quantifying the Benefits of Organic Dairy Production.”

Of course, the chemical companies will probably figure out some way to spin this. Like the oil companies, they’re getting scared about the fact that public opinion is turning against them – so scared, they sent Michelle Obama a letter berating her for not using pesticides and chemical fertilizers in the White Houste veggie and herb garden. Amazing.

Link [GreenBiz.com]
Photo credit: Flickr User Royalty-Free Image Collection

Cow Crap from Illinois Caused Jersey-Sized Dead Zone in Gulf

The Mississippi has become a deadly river of shit and fertilizer, carrying the chemicals and waste from farms along its banks down into the Gulf of Mexico, where they have caused a giant oxygen-deprived ‘hypoxic zone’.  Commonly known as a ‘dead zone’, this swath of the gulf is unable to support life and its size is increasing by the day.

Now, researchers say they’ve identified where some of regions responsible for releasing the most phosphorous and nitrogen into the Mississippi River basin.

From GreenBiz.com:

The report, available at http://water.usgs.gov, follows on an earlier report that narrowed the culprits for 70 percent of the pollution leading to the dead zone to nine states: Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi.

From the report:

Almost all of the top 150 watersheds are in the Corn Belt or near the Mississippi River, with the highest yields of TN [total nitrogen] being in northern Illinois and central Indiana and highest yields of TP [total phosphorus] being from watersheds along the Mississippi River, and in northern Kentucky, and distributed through Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. [...] Therefore, if one were interested in placing management efforts only in a specified number of the highest contributing watersheds, the watersheds to place efforts could be readily identified.

Last year, the NOAA predicted that the dead zone will increase to 8,800 miles – about the size of New Jersey.  [Insert joke about shit and New Jersey here. I'm too lazy.]

Now that the causes have been pinpointed, it’s time for the government to start addressing this problem. States need to start focusing their pollution-reduction efforts to prevent the dead zone from killing even more sea life.

GreenBiz.com reports that the EPA has announced three grants to Iowa State University researchers that would focus on reducing pollution runoff into the Mississippi River – it’s a start.

Link [GreenBiz.com]
Photo credit: Flickr user dipfan

Fish Oil Could Control Methane-Packed Cow Farts

When cows fart – which they do, a lot – one of the most potent greenhouse gases in existence is released in huge quantities. That, of course, contributes to global warming. But how do we get all the cows on the planet to stop passing gas? Scientists have tried trapping it in tanks strapped to the cows’ backs and other crazy measures, and the latest one is really fishy: using fish oil to reduce cow flatulence.

From Live Science:

Specifically, including 2 percent fish oil in the diet of cattle reduces flatulence, apparently due to the omega 3 fatty acids in the oil. The study was a small one, however. The technique cut methane output of three cows by 21 percent, said Lorraine Lillis of the University College Dublin.

“The fish oil affects the methane-producing bacteria in the rumen part of the cow’s gut, leading to reduced emissions,” Lillis said. “Understanding which microbial species are particularly influenced by changes in diet and relating them to methane production could bring about a more targeted approach to reducing methane emissions in animals.”

Asked about the overall potential benefits fish-oil, Lillis told LiveScience she didn’t know yet what effect it might have on a larger group of cattle. She also acknowledged a possible shortcoming of the scheme: “There may be some trade-off as fish oil is expensive and difficult to get,” she said. Also not considered yet, she said, is whether it would put undue pressure on fish populations.

It’s certainly an interesting approach, and nowhere near as silly as cows with pink fart balloons attached to them. Of course, the best approach would be for as many people as possible to reduce the amount of meat they eat or stop altogether, which would reduce demand for cows and cut the population. But that’s too much to ask, apparently, so here we are.

Link [Live Science]
Photo credit: Flickr user Flikr

Thirsty? How Does Cow Piss Soda Sound?

Mmm, cow urine soda! This week’s Zaproot video gives us the scoop on a new ‘health elixir’ being marketed in India – cow piss. Also covered: forest preservation, a map of the U.S.’s biggest polluters and toad crossing zones.

Check it out:

As always, ridiculously adorable host Jessica Williamson guides us through some of the most fun and interesting bits of green news. Be sure to check Zaproot.com every week for a new video!

Link [Zaproot]

Hamburgers are the Hummers of Food

When it comes to global warming, hamburgers are the Hummers of food. The reason? In a word, beef. It’s incredibly inefficient to produce and cows release insane amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. The more demand there is for beef, the more cows will be bred across the world. So, every time you take a bite out of a burger, you’re contributing to global warming in a way that’s almost as bad as driving one of those monstrous “I’m attempting to compensate for a small penis” mobiles.

Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Canada is one of a growing number of scientists studying the environmental costs of food, from the field to your plate, and he’s got a message for you: go veg, at least a few days a week.

From Yahoo News:

By looking at everything from how much grain a cow eats before it is ready for slaughter to the emissions released by manure, they are getting a clearer idea of the true costs of food.

The livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit.

Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it’s responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

That’s because a single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry, Pelletier said.

People are also eating way more meat than they used to. Meat was once a luxury in our diet, and now – particularly in America – it has taken center stage in most meals. Because of growing demand, meat production is projected to double by 2050, so we’ll have to cut meat consumption nearly in half just to maintain current emissions levels. That’s simply not enough.

Chris Weber, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, says switching to no red meat and no dairy products is the equivalent of cutting out 8,100 miles driven in a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon.

So, that begs the question of you meat eaters… is that burger really worth it?

Link [Yahoo News]
Photo credit: Big-Limos.com

Cow Burps Responsible for More Greenhouse Gases than Cars

A herd of cows produces more greenhouse gases than a family car just by burping, a researcher at the University of Portsmouth said this week.  Dr. Andy Thorpe explained that 200 cows belch out enough methane each year to equal the emissions produced by a car being driven 111,850 miles.

From The Independent:

He added that while CO2 emissions have increased by 31 per cent during the past 250 years, methane, which has a higher warming potential and a longer lifetime in the atmosphere, has increased by 149 per cent during the same period.

Dr Thorpe added that methane in the atmosphere was believed to be responsible for one-fifth of global warming experienced since 1750.

The main animal producers are domestic animals, particularly cows, sheep, goats and camels which have an additional stomach, he said.

I’ve got an easy solution: sell the family car and starting riding around on cows. It’ll be way more fun, if slower. Seriously though, cutting back on the amount of meat and dairy we consume would be a huge help. The reason there are so many cows on this earth at any given time is that huge numbers are raised for meat and dairy.

A single dairy cow can produce as much as 176 pounds of methane per year. If there wasn’t as much demand, factory farms wouldn’t breed so many cows. It wouldn’t just cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, it would also reduce the amount of grain needed for cattle feed (and the land, fertilizer, pesticides and water used to grow it). It’s simple. If you’re not willing to go vegetarian, at least cut back.  Having fewer meat-centered meals per week isn’t that big a sacrifice when you consider what we’re up against.

Link [The Independent]
Photo credit: Flickr user foxypar4

Be Wary: Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit from Global Warming

It’s time to go on greenwashing high alert.  Companies are getting the message that they’re not going to continue making profits if they’re seen as being bad for the environment, as the public becomes more educated and passionate about the fight against global warming. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that all of those companies are starting to do the right thing and clean up their acts.  Some are choosing to present themselves as eco-friendly even as they pollute the earth, eager to cash in on the green movement.

From Alternet:

For example, proponents of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), an artificial hormone that boosts a cow’s milk production, now cite a study published at Cornell University “proving” that using rBGH is green. When the study came out, newspapers wrote clever headlines about reducing cows’ carbon “hoofprint.” Yet the basis of the study (that cows treated with rBGH eat the same amount as cows not treated with the hormone) was flawed, and the study was written by a group including Dale Bauman (who has received funding from Monsanto, the company then behind rBGH, in the past) and a Monsanto consultant. (Monsanto owned rBGH and marketed it under the brand name Posilac until it sold the product to Eli Lilly and Company last month.)

In reality, the way to reduce a dairy cow’s carbon hoofprint is to allow her to graze on pasture to reduce the amount of grain in her diet. As a perennial, grass does not require annual planting. Nor does it require fertilizer (beyond the manure fertilizer the cows apply to the pasture themselves). The cows also replace the machinery to harvest, process and transport their food that would be required for a diet of grain. But a cow receiving rBGH cannot enjoy a diet of mostly grass; she simply cannot take in enough calories a day via grazing to support increased milk production. Only a higher-calorie grain diet — one that makes cows sick — can support the metabolism of a cow on drugs.

Alternet points out that companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer are pushing the lie that genetically modified crops are going to get us through the climate crisis, and that many people won’t dig deep enough into the science behind it to learn the truth.

It’s clear that even as the oil industry finally dies a slow, long overdue death, other greedy, unscrupulous industries will step in to take its place. We’ll always be battling money-hungry corporations that will do anything to gain the sort of power that the oil industry has attained, and we definitely can’t give up.  Let’s not allow Monsanto et al to get us off track.

Link [Alternet]
Photo credit: Flickr user gina pina

Current Regulations Allow Cattle to be Transported for 52 Hours Without Food or Water

In today’s world of modern conveniences, it’s easy for many people to overlook the journey that the goods they consume must take before arriving at their homes, restaurants or retail stores.  In fact, most people don’t want to know or don’t care about whether the people who made their clothing were paid a fair wage, or whether the wood furniture they purchase originated from a rainforest.  This is especially true with food.  So many people have adopted an ‘ignorance is bliss’ attitude.

There are so many good reasons to eat local, grass-fed, humanely raised meat (if you’re not a vegetarian, that is).  Now, you can add this one to the list: current regulations allow cattle to be transported for up to 52 hours without food and water.  As if it wasn’t bad enough already that they’re so often kept in cramped stalls, fed pesticide-laden grain, pumped with antibiotics, deprived of the little things that make life worth living for any creature and worst of all, treated as if they aren’t even live beings.

I know that most meat eaters don’t want to know what goes on at slaughterhouses or on livestock farms, for the sake of their own peace of mind.  I’ve heard it a million times – “It just tastes too damn good”. But, can you really be okay with the idea that your food was tortured before you consumed it? At least buy the good stuff from responsible farmers and/or cut back on the amount of meat you eat.  Just think of the poor, sad cow that suffered through a four-day journey without food and water in order for you to enjoy that juicy, delicious hamburger.  Mmmm, tortured flesh.

Link [Treehugger]

Researchers Collecting Cow Flatulence in Plastic Tanks to Study Global Warming

10 cows in Argentina are wearing fashionable pink ‘balloon backpacks’ that collect methane directly from their stomachs. Researchers in Argentina are studying the effects of methane on the environment, and they’ve discovered that methane from cows accounts for more than 30 percent of Argentina’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

From The Telegraph:

As one of the world’s biggest beef producers, Argentina has more than 55 million cows grazing in its famed Pampas grasslands.
Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology, said every cow produces between 8000 to 1,000 litres of emissions every day.

Methane, which is also released from landfills, coal mines and leaking gas pipes, is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

Scientists are now carrying out trials of new diets designed to improve cows’s digestion and hopefully reduce global warming. Silvia Valtorta, of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations, said that by feeding cows clover and alfalfa instead of grain “you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent”.

So, these big balloon-like bags collect the methane that would otherwise come out of the cow at both ends and end up in the atmosphere, and when they’re full the scientists take them off and hang them up in the corral for analysis. Gross. Can you imagine accidentally getting a whiff of methane straight from a cow’s stomach? Though, I guess it may be milder than it would be after traveling through… okay, I’m thinking way too much about cow flatulence first thing in the morning.

Link [The Telegraph] via [Robotzilla]
Photo credit: Reuters

Monsanto Says Hormone-Pumped Cows are Good for the Environment

Cornell University researchers, along with Monsanto, have said that injecting dairy cows with Monsanto’s recombitant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is good for the environment. They claim that rBGH makes each cow produce more milk, so we would then need fewer cows, therefore we’d need less land and resources to raise dairy cows. In effect, according to the researchers, for every 1 million cows supplemented with the hormone, the reduction in carbon footprint would be equivalent to removing about 400,000 cars from the road or planting 300 million trees.

The Daily Kos has, er, beef with that argument, and has explained it thusly:

Why It’s a Load of Bull: Their entire argument assumes that you need to feed cows corn. You don’t. You actually shouldn’t. Cows evolved to eat GRASS. They evolved to graze. Grazing requires very little resources and energy. Here’s why:

First, grass is a perennial. You don’t need to plant it every year like you do with corn and soy. You plant it once, it grows, the cow eats it, it grows back. Planting stuff takes energy. Less planting = less energy.

Second of all, when cows graze, they harvest their own food. Harvesting food requires energy. You must harvest corn. You also have to process it and transport it before the cows can eat it. That takes energy too.

From what I’ve read, feeding cows grass or grain isn’t entirely an either/or. You can feed them a mix of both. What is important is not whether they eat any grain, but how much grain they eat. With a diet of mostly grass, the cows can tolerate some grain and stay healthy.

Ok, well, why not switch to feeding cows grass instead of grain, so they’re healthier and require less antibiotics, and we can cut out the need for growth hormone all together? Oh, wait. That’s right. Cows fed hormones need more calories than grass alone provides – they need grain. Monsanto produces grain. Patented grain that has been genetically engineered not to self-seed so that farmers have to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year to produce more grain. More grain, which is fed to all of these cows that will then need Monsanto’s growth hormone in order to produce more milk to supposedly help the environment. Because Monsanto’s all about helping the environment, right?

Link [The Daily Kos] via [Groovy Green]
Photo credit: Flickr user joi

Biodegradable Motor Oil Made from Cow Fat Now Available

Motor oil is nasty stuff. It’s the biggest source of pollution in most waterways and can contain toxic substances like benzene and lead. As new vehicles begin to move toward a more eco-friendly model all around, motor oil will likely get a makeover too – or perhaps be reinvented all together using cow fat. That’s right, you could use cow fat instead of motor oil for a biodegradable, natural, non-polluting lubricant. Right now, it’s only available for recreational vehicles – not yet for full-size automobiles.

From Eco Geek via Green Daily:

Green Earth Technologies, creator of organic engine products, has released their new automotive lubricant to its G-Oil line, a 10W-30 that has set a new biodegradability standard. The oil biodegraded over 90% in a speedy 9 days, blowing the 28-day rate of decomposition required by the American Society of Testing Materials out of the water. Pretty impressive.

The oil, like the others in the line, is made from saturated fat from cows, which works great for high performance in engines. This new oil is for 4-cycle off-road and recreational vehicle engines and so helps out an eensy bit with the impact vehicles have when operated, though it’s not like these types of vehicles tend to be ultra green in the first place.

Green Daily worries that this will give companies a new reason to coop cows up and harvest a different kind of fluid from them. If my understanding of the process is correct, slaughterhouses would simply have a different use for the fat left over as byproducts. I can’t imagine that they would lock cows up and ‘harvest’ fat from them to make oil, but then again, some of the things they do to animals in the livestock industry is pretty unimaginably disgusting and cruel, so who knows. Doing it that way would certainly be a step in the wrong direction.

One thing I do know is, a lot of people out there right now are wondering whether cow fat motor oil would make your exhaust smell like hamburgers. Dirty, burnt hamburgers from the greasiest diner on the side of the highway – just the way some folks like it, I guess. Yuck.

Link [Green Daily] + [Eco Geek]
Photo credit: Flickr user Michael (mx5tx)

How Now See Through Cow- Front Row View on a Bovine Stomach

Behold the fistula.

It’s guaranteed to creep people out, but in the world of cows and other such creatures, it’s routine. “Animals can live a surprising amount of time with a permanent hole to their stomach, especially if it is a surgically made fistula.” There is a reason:

Agricultural scientists learn about the digestive system of cattle by putting holes in cows–and the cows stay alive and well. These cows (fitted with a sealing cover called a “cannula”) each have a hole into their stomach. Through this hole one can extract food caught mid-stream through the digestive system.

Fistulated cows are used to research the digestibility of different foodstuffs for cattle. One can feed the cow, then later catch the food while it’s digesting to see how it’s doing. Without fistulated cows, one would have to look at external factors in order to garner information about the best food for cows–none of which are as accurate as food sampled right from the stomach.

The site explains that cows with fistulas live longer since it’s easier to treat them when they have illnesses in their digestive systems. I can add that a fistulated cow is liable to have a long life because she’s more valuable. Apart from giving milk, having a fistula is the nearest thing, in a cow, to having a useful talent.

I know about these things because it so happens that, in my life, fistulas are pretty routine. I work at UC Davis, where we have a big experimental dairy herd, and a number of the cows are fistulated. Although, jeez–the fistulas in these photographs are huge compared to ours. They’re like portholes. You expect to see someone inside the cow, peering out.

Link [Oddity Central]