 |
|
« Lean vs. Six Sigma...What's Hotter? | Main | Does Industry Money Taint Research? »
August 15, 2005
Should We Have a Cow Over Cow Pollution?
Factory dairies have a beef with an air district in California which claims that dairy cows, not cars, are the biggest single source of smog-forming gases. Time to clear the air:
Over the last six years, California's San Joaquin Valley has held the dubious distinction of being home to the smoggiest air in the country, reports this LA Times article.
Now, government officials have identified one of the biggest culprits: dairy cows. Officials contend that gases from the valley's 2.5 million bovines, not cars or trucks or pesticides, are the region's biggest single source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a key smog-forming pollutant. In a controversial new report, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District claims that the typical cow releases 50% more VOCs than currently thought. The yearly VOC emission of an average dairy cow is 19.3 lbs., estimates the air district. VOCs react with other pollutants to form ground-level ozone, or smog, reports this story.
And this estimate (also called emission factor) has serious implications for the region's booming dairy industry. Up to 250 more dairies will have to apply for permits with the air pollution control district. And dairies that are able to obtain permits will also have to comply with regulations slated to be announced next summer.
To satisfy the region's planned air-quality regulations, the dairy industry will have to spend millions of dollars in pricey pollution-control technology in feedlots and waste lagoons, and may even have to look into modifying animals' diets, reports this news story.
While, it's important to note that cars do emit many major pollutants that cows do not, and they are responsible for more smog-forming emissions overall, the VOC emission of cows is a contentious issue in the San Joaquin air basin because of its huge bovine population (roughly one of every five dairy cows in the country resides there). Also, government officials estimate that the number of cows in the valley will increase from 2.5 million to about 2.9 million over the next several years.
Many are taking issue with the new cow emission factor. Industry officials contend that the estimate has little scientific basis. Additionally, five members of Congress and 12 state legislators have urged the district to reassess their findings, calling the new emission factor ridiculously overblown. Also, the scientist whose research helped the air district reach that number is critical of the figure.
"If you closed all the dairies in California tomorrow, you would not see much of an impact on ozone formation," remarked the scientist, Frank Mitloehner of UC Davis, who was employed by air-quality regulators to examine cow emissions and now claims his findings were misinterpreted, according to this news item.
Meanwhile, air-quality officials are standing by their estimate, saying that it's based on the best available research and is actually on the conservative side.
Environmentalists also agree that the number is too low, pointing out that it doesn't take into account the compounds released by manure used as fertilizer, feed storage and other dairy processes. Some community groups have also weighed in, calling the estimate too modest.
While studying cow emissions has been ridiculed by some as "fart science" (although most gas actually emanates from the front end of the cow), this matter is no joke in a region where many children suffer from asthma and officials issue smog warnings on sweltering days. "This is not some arcane dispute about cow gases," says Brent Newell, an attorney for the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, to the LA Times. "We are talking about a public health crisis. It's not funny to joke about cow burps and farts when one in six children in Fresno schools is carrying an inhaler."
Others agree about the urgency of the matter. "We need immediate regulation now. We know the pollutants are coming off these dairies," says Tom Frantz, a native of Shafter, Calif., who leads a group called the Assn. of Irritated Residents. He says that he started suffering from asthma when factory dairy farms moved into the region. "Ag hasn't been regulated in the past, but times are changing. Our lungs will not become an agricultural subsidy."
Sources:
In San Joaquin Valley, Cows Pass Cars as Polluters
Miguel Bustillo
Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2005
www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/la-me-cows2aug02,1,6128505.story?coll=chi-homepagenews2-utl
Cows Blamed for Valley Air Pollution
The Associated Press, August 1, 2005
www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=3668840
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/156
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
52 CommentsProblem: Food is the principal source of sewage. Solution: Ban eating.
Farts and the fart science you wrote about have a common source: Assholes.
August 16, 2005 12:29 PMI think this issue have very little scientific basis. If these "cow emissions" are a problem with only 2.5 million cows, how big a problem are "human emission" of the same type with nearly 10 million people? Not to mention their cars, motor cycles, planes, trains, truck, etc.
Pardon me, but this is literal Bullsh*t.
August 16, 2005 12:54 PMThis all proves that government agencies still produce more bullshit than all of the cows in the world. Maybe we should bottle it and sell it back to the Mideast.
August 16, 2005 1:04 PMFew people remember now that in the early 1950's the area around what is now Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm was almost exclusively dairy farming. The state courts decided that the land could be taxed as if built solid with houses. By about 1956 there wasn't a dairy to be found. Could the brouhaha over bovine emissions be really another land grab ploy?
I hope Californians learn to enjoy their $10 a gallon fresh milk.
August 16, 2005 1:12 PMI can see it now, just like we have to have our cars tested for emissions (another Ontario money grab), next we'll have cows lined up for testing to see if they pass emission standards! Can you imagine what that equipment would look like?!
My son's allergist claims humans don't need milk anyway - the native indians didn't hunt down buffalo for its milk and neither did the Inuit people the polar bear, and both survived just fine for 20,000 years. Maybe this emmisions issue is just another side effect of us supporting an industry we don't really need. Do we REALLY need milk or is it just the powerful dairy lobby which has told us we do? Real health needs or just clever marketing - the more milk we drink the more money they make - think about it! If the fuel industry told us to drive the long way home everyday because it was good for us wouldn't we see right through their schemes? Sure maybe a few more minutes to transistion from work to home may be beneficial to us, but do they really care about that or do they REALLY just want to sell more gas?? Find a review on the book - Don't Drink Your Milk where you can learn such things as throughout Asia, Africa, and South America, cow's milk is considered unfit for human consumption!
August 16, 2005 1:14 PMI lived in the San Joaquin Valley for about 8 years, and believe me, large concentrations of dairy cows can cause problems. The manure dries and particles are picked up by the wind causing suspended particulate matter. ( the Central Valley receives no rain from May through November). The cows release CH4 (Methane) from the anaerobic bacteria residing in the digestive system, however; there is also a lot of natural methane from the oil fields.
August 16, 2005 1:17 PMHow about filtered respirators for the front and catalytic converters for the back. Don't be surprised when California takes the credit for my idea ,and makes a ton of money off it.
August 16, 2005 1:18 PMAgricultural pollution is a serious issue and should not be dismissed as ridiculous. Perhaps more work needs to be done to quanitify them, but cow emmissions are significant, as any person who has passed by a dairy can attest.
Keep in mind that a cow weighs about 7 or 8 times what a person weighs. So, those 2.5 million cows are like 19 million persons. Also, most human waste is confined, collected, and treated. Methane and other gases are captured at central treatment facilities and burned in flares or in energy recovery systems.
Three million gallons of liquid cow manure spilled from a lagoon on a farm near Lowville, New York on August 11th. It flowed into the Black River and hundreds of thousands of fish were killed.
Factory farming creates real environmental issues. Ignore them at your own risk.
August 16, 2005 1:32 PMMaybe cows contribute a portion of the pollutants. But just how doea one control what the cows do? Don't we human beings do the same ? Should we also wear some devices?
The more logical way is to minimize car emission.
This is doable. If the car industry makes more hybrids and cut down on large guzzlers, the air will be much cleaner.
August 16, 2005 1:49 PMLet's Just be thankful the cows don't eat baked beans and drink beer!
August 16, 2005 1:50 PMI remember a time when the world smelled like flowers, cows smelled like roses, and everyone was happy...too bad Clinton can't be re-elected!
Rage Against The Machine - Down with Bush
August 16, 2005 2:04 PMNow we're talking. We can fund the EPA to attack the Dept. of Agriculture, which hands out millions to dairy farmers.
Whichever department loses, we've eliminated one more agency, but not before the taxpayer is taxed to death.
August 16, 2005 2:11 PMShould we ban dogs too? We shouldn't ban cats, they already have catalytic converters.
August 16, 2005 2:21 PMCommuters could ride the cows - reducing auto emissions and dispersing the manure. Traffic would not be much slower.
August 16, 2005 2:30 PMCut way back on all cars, especially BIG cars (SUV'S), depend on public transportation and ride bicycles. This cuts way back on pollution, we can still get around and will be fitter as well. Let's get Fat America lean and mean and show oil sheiks what's up!
August 16, 2005 2:59 PMI concur with Dan Leggett. He provides an intelligent response with a real life and current example of what can happen if you just ignore environmental issues such as industrial and agricultural polution issues. It seems most responders prefer to poke fun at people or problems with shallow humor and reasoning. Buzzwords "environment, environmentalists, scientists, global warming, and evolution" are targets for attack by the "right-wing conservative christian" political agenda because they do not fit in with population control, and large corporate profit agenda's.
In relation to the comment by "Monkey", why would we want to bring back more bullshit (Clinton) when the Valley is trying to eliminate some??
August 16, 2005 4:07 PMI totally agree with the earlier comment - Its's nothing but Bushxxit,sorry Clinton cant be reelected.His many splunder - Lie to the country,squnder all the surplus,favor to the richand now trying to destroy the SS system before fixing the fed budget,medicare.
August 16, 2005 4:51 PMCow manure should be used to make methane and generate electricity. This is flushing barrels of oil down the drain, it's stupid. For that matter human waste can used to the same thing. There is no logical reason not to do this? With rising energy costs it is crucial that we get off our cans and get to work. A side benefit is that it cleans up the environment at the same time.
August 16, 2005 5:14 PMIf this is all accurate, I wonder how it is that the cultures that live today without technology or cars but plenty of cows don't need inhalers at all. I think someone has way too much money and time on their hands, too bad it is our tax dollars hardly working as opposed to hard at work again!
August 16, 2005 6:06 PMhow stupid does this lobbying group think we are?
August 17, 2005 7:51 AMWhat will they think of next? While these hoity-toity politicians' gardners are putting "manure" on the hybrid roses - did anyone read the ingredients? I am sure the cow is more beneficially productive to our society than an automobile. What about chickens? Next, someone will try to find a way to prevent fish from urinating and defacating because that has to affect our water purity, right?
Why not spend some time researching how to harness animal "by-products" into fuel than wasting our tax dollars to measure how much gas comes out of a cow and which "end" of the cow is "most offensive"! (What is the VOC of a diaper?)
Want to be concerned with air-quality? Stop at a traffic light next to a garbage truck on a 90 degree day. (Not sure which will make you gag first - the truck emissions or the smell of the garbage or seeing the grungey driver eating a Big Mac). And that is with the windows CLOSED! (Pity the bicycler).
I grew up in the "country" and live in a rural area again after nearly 20 years in a city. We have dairy/cattle, horse, sheep and assorted livestock farms less than a mile in any direction from our home. Thank you very much, I prefer the "natural" odors of farms rather than factory and vehicle emissions for my children. We frequently have "fresh country air" days and although odiferous, it does not inhibit our ability to breathe. My children who grew up in the city have more allergies than my child who is growing up in the rural area. In fact, several of them have moved to rural areas and are much more healthy. And my husband, who grew up in the city, suffers considerably less from his allergies and asthma than 8 years ago when he lived in "town" with an inhaler in reach at all times.
NO INHALERS IN THIS COUNTRY HOME in Michigan. (Take a trip to Mackinaw Island before you compare animal and vehicle emissions. After 3 days, you WILL notice a significant difference).
August 17, 2005 10:22 AMHow about putting a cow in every car,and run the car on cow gas. That should help the energy crises and reduce overall pollution!
August 17, 2005 3:29 PMThe meat and dairy industry in this country does not just produce untold amounts of air and water pollution. If we stopped feeding crops like corn and soybeans to cows and fed them to people instead, no one in the world would ever starve again. 1/3 of all raw material resources and 1/2 of the water in the U.S. are used to support the meat, dairy, and egg industries and you thought fixing a leaky faucet would help with water conservation. Think again. It takes 4,000 gallons of water to produce a day's food for a meat-eater, 1,200 gallons for a lacto-ovo vegetarian, and 300 gallons for a pure vegetarian (vegan). The next time you want to do something good for the environment, recycling is good, buying a hybrid car, decent, but the very best thing seems to be turning down steak for dinner.
--Also, meat eaters are 10 times more likely to die of heart disease then pure vegetarians. --
None of this is true!!!!!!!
April 27, 2006 9:15 AM
