Cattle, global warming and the fart tax By Will Verboven
September, 2002
Some how it seems fitting that part of the Kyoto imbroglio includes the role of flatulence as a cause of global warming. Its inclusion gives the whole issue a much deserved image of incredulity or better yet - just plain silliness.
To date one prominent Canadian corporation and one foreign government have ventured out to wrestle with the Kyoto monster by trying to manage, of all things - the flatulence emissions of livestock. Not unexpectantly this activity is viewed as being a bit impractical and even humorous.
It started two years ago when the Transalta Company with great media fanfare announced that they were going to use Ugandan cattle to help save the world from global warming. The plan was to have cattle in that country eat a special feed supplement that would cause them to become less flatulent. Beano for bovines so to speak.
The idea was that the supplement would reduce the amount of methane, a greenhouse gas, in cattle flatulence. However, to be emission-correct, that bovine impolite habit is not the main outlet for methane. Most of it comes out the front end of cattle through belching, more politely known as eructation. That explains why cows have such bad breath.
The Transalta cow emission story was picked up by virtually the entire Canadian media industry, which causes one to ponder whether it was a newsworthy story or does the media just have a peculiar fascination with flatulence. The latter is probably closer to the truth as the story seemed a bit farfetched otherwise.
It all began with the notion, claimed by global warming doomsayers, that domestic cattle are major contributors of methane to the atmosphere through belching and flatulence. How that contribution can be calculated with any certainty has never been explained, particularly when you consider the undetermined amount of methane produced by countless wild ruminant animals. Add into that the unknown quantities of methane produced by coal mines, rice paddies, swamps, landfills and the whole calculation becomes murky.
However, like much of the rhetoric surrounding the Kyoto soap opera - wishful thinking somehow becomes politically-correct doctrine. Transalta became involved in this project because of its desire to obtain emission offset credits.
Those credits are used to offset emissions produced by Transalta coal-fired power generating plants. It's all part of the brave new Kyoto world, where corporations and governments are able to displace emission reduction requirements by purchasing or creating offset credits. The unlikely Ugandan cattle scheme is a part of that endeavour.
From a livestock production aspect, the plan does seem somewhat impractical. Uganda is a semi-tropical country where livestock graze outdoors year-around. Feeding supplements to large numbers of cattle is not well-developed.
Transalta however intends to persevere and states that progress is being made. They maintain that this is a long-term 30 year project and that it will need time to reach its goal. To date only four thousand cattle are participating in the project out of a cattle population in Uganda of about 5 million. No emission credits have yet been issued to Transalta.
Although Transalta intends to soldier on with its Uganda project, flatulence and Kyoto has reached new heights of absurdity elsewhere. New Zealand, in order to meet its Kyoto commitments, will have to reduce methane emissions produced by its millions of sheep and cattle.
Not surprisingly, a government commissioned report recommended a carbon or emission tax be placed on each sheep and cow. It quickly became known as the Fart Tax. It was estimated that this tax would raise millions of dollars of revenue, even though there is virtually nothing farmers can do to reduce the amount of methane produced by New Zealand livestock.
Apparently unlike Ugandan cattle, feeding a supplement to New Zealand livestock to reduce methane-rich flatulence and belching is not feasible or effective. After much ridicule the Fart Tax idea has since been shelved.
However, one ingenious idea to control methane emissions in New Zealand was proposed. It suggested that tubes be inserted in both ends of sheep and the methane be collected in tanks strapped to their backs. The sheep methane, being an all-natural and organic product, could then be sold to environmentally-correct Kyoto proponents to cook their tofu burgers. It seems the ultimate guilt-free burger is finally within our grasp.
Closer to home; in one of those ironic twists of fate that bedevils those groups that want an environmental paradise, there is one practice that helps reduce methane emissions from cattle. However, it is a practice that many of these same groups oppose for other reasons.
It has been discovered that a side-effect of feeding low-levels of antibiotics to cattle is a reduction in their methane emissions. This feeding practice is carried out in many cattle feedlots in North America.
This situation poses a dilemma for environmental group spin doctors who want to maintain political correctness with this issue. Do they oppose antibiotic use in cattle feeding and thereby increase methane production or do they support antibiotic use and thereby reduce methane emissions from cattle?
It seems that never in human history has flatulence and belching become so critical to the well being of the planet. Mother Nature does indeed have a sense of humour.
|
|
|  |
Industry Question
Are you optimistic about the outlook for our cattle industry in the coming year?
Further comments you may have can be forwarded using our our web page survey. We would like to hear from you.
Results
|
| |
|
