Follow up to prev question. Okay, so if cow farts/belches are so damaging to the environment...?

Man, there's a lot of dancing going on 'round here.

Seems no one wants to answer your question directly.

Dana's nice piechart is just that. Nice. But totally irrelevant. It doesn't mention any natural methane sources at all, because, well, it's a breakdown of anthropogenic sources. Pretty apparent to even the mild observer. If you like piecharts, then here:

http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/c...

As you can see, none of the non-domesticated animals register...unless you get technical and mention termites. Termites have been a bit of a controversy, as there methane production has been estimated at much higher - 10 times - but this would tip the scales of methane production towards natural production...and we can't accept that can't we.

No animals can digest cellulose without microbes. Microbial breakdown of cellulose releases methane as a byproduct, although some pathways produce less than others, meaning you can't oversimplify the question and go by the total mass of cellulose consumed by the animal. Nevertheless, there are many possible sources left out for what reasons, I don't know. One of the most prolific consumers of cellulose along with ungulates and termites are grasshoppers and locusts. Their consumption is legendary - so what is their methane contribution? Who knows? I guess it's easier to measure CH4 emissions from those animals that will hold still. Suffice to say, we've written off many potential sources as insignificant, because...well...why is it that when skeptics point out the anthropogenic GHG contribution as being "insignificant" relative to nature, it sends them into a tizzy, but they always seem eager to dis nature and claim that additional sources are insignificant? Show me the science.

And gazpacho, the indigenous grazers of Australia are your 'roo population. Interestingly enough, kangaroos digestion produces considerably less methane than cows, their natural mix of flora much more efficient at breaking down cellulose. Scientists are hoping they can use these same microbes to modify cattle digestion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573261/p...

Either way, you can bet that IF we start charging/penalizing each country for GHG emissions, that there will be a lot of finger pointing that will lead to precise calculations of all emitters. In answer to your question, yes, there are a lot of grazing wildlife that simply haven't rated investigation. It'll come eventually and further muddy the waters.

Here's one:

http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2003/masseynews/jun...

I like the picture of the deer with these massive contraptions to measure methane output. How is that going to sit with nature lovers whose concern for the environment requires such research, but traditionally have protested against research animals? Conflicted? Can you imagine pictures of elephants or cuddly koalas with these devices strapped to their bodies, looking like a scene from Saw IV?

PERMACULTURE ANSWER

Farming Nature

Nature in an undamaged conditions is ecosystems finely tuned in equilibrium ,

Man has broken these systems upset the balance ,

Stop eating cows meat and start farming deer ,

You do not need to deforest for them and they are natural animals not like cows who were an invention of man ,which overgrazes in confined situations and compacts the ground with it sheavy flat feet,bring the salt to the surface

Man is too stupid generally speaking

For example the African veldt had millions of animals roaming it grazing at least 40 species of grasses ,

and consisting of hundreds of species of animals living in a sustainable manner being autosuficient as a whole with a build in quality control in the form of predators ,

Why did Humans not just take care and manage that and we would have had an incredible style of farming nature with hardly any work.

Instead they sub divided the veld into many compartments,

killed all the animals ,brought it down to a few species of grass ,

Put in a few cows compared to the millions of animals before ,

and planted corn ,turning the place in to near deserts within 100 years

.

Now that was really clever wasnt it .

All they had to do was have a change of diet.

In Mexico the tacos are gonna kill the country ,

the cows and the corn

.but to get Mexicans to eat different stuff from tortillas is impossible

people get what they deserve.

Well, there are deffinitely a lot more cattle in Australia than there are elk, deer, buffalo, elephants, rhinos, hippos, muskox, water buffalo, wildebeast, etc. I would say close to around 1,000,000 to 1 and that is if all the others are grouped together.

Sorry.

To add to the other answerer's: The CO2 released by this years cows comes from previous years cows. It's a cycle. It's not the same CO2, but the same amount. The CO2 exerted by cows comes from their food. The plants extract CO2 from the atmosphere (previous years emissions). So, the same amount of CO2 gets re-absorbed, and then released every year. It doesn't effect GW. Oil comes from ancient organic matter, mostly vegetable, which has been taken out of this natural circulation. Their rapid re-introduction, together with deforestation, is proving to be to much for the natural 'sink holes' to absorb. Thus the atmospheric CO2 levels are rising.

Most all the data is bogus. They publish all kinds of info on the millions of cubic feet that is in the atmosphere. It is a lie as methane is very light so if u could find it would be 55 miles up. Now tell me how to measure that. But it is not there either as methane is very flammable ,and the first aircraft to fly through it would make a big boom. How it happens is when the methane gets very high the sun is so intense it oxidizes and as more CO2 falls back to earth. Global warming is a scam so the Co. can raise prices and the gov can increase the tax.

Here's the crux of it - the main emission by cows (primarily in their burps and also in their dung, not in farts) is methane. As you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Gas_...

Methane only accounts for about 25% the amount of global warming that CO2 does, and only 40% of that is from the agriculture industry. So all ruminant livestock account for on the order of 10% of the human contribution to global warming. I've seen estimates as high as 18%, but a recent study at UC Davis discovered that cows emit half the greenhouse gases as previously thought, so I think 10% is more accurate.

As for the rest of your question, I think you're underestimating the number of domestic ruminant livestock and overestimating the number of wild ruminant animals. Additionally, the reason people focus on cows is because they emit significantly more methane than, say, sheep. Thus I think the overall global warming contribution from ruminant species is accounted for quite accurately.

Nature is really good about dealing with natural sources of greenhouse gases. There is a good balance between natural sources of greenhouse gases and natural absorbers (sinks) of greenhouse gases.

But it's a delicate balance and some man made activities are messing it up. That's what is meant by "global warming", it's unnatural climate change caused by seemingly small things man does.

One such thing is domestic animals grown in large numbers while confined in small areas like feedlots. My friend cosmo has made a rare mistake, this is important. Domestic animals are way more of a problem than wild animals.

This article (also cited by cosmo) focuses on CO2, but the principles it illustrates about natural causes versus man made ones are applicable more widely. The upper right graph is really good at sorting it out.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

Hmmm.... I guess I'm not a Greenshirt, according to the post below. I love to give scientifically correct answers to stuff like this.

first of all, this environment stuff is ridiculous! If we've been on the earth this long, and we are nonetheless right here, somebody is going to parent it out. And sure, our planet may be experiencing exchange, yet why does all and sundry suspect that it is undesirable. i'm a company believer that if its broken, it is fastened. permit's decide a thank you to diminish gas costs, convey paintings back to u.s., and shop people who deal marijuana out of detention center so as that criminals dealing with larger costs have a cellular waiting for them. I relax my case.

This suggestion is nonsensical propaganda, designed to distract attention from the real problem: burning of fossil fuel.

There are many natural sources and sinks of green house gasses. The problem is the excess, over the natural values, caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

The Greenshirts aren't going to answer this one because the bedrock of their philosophy is that everything associated with humans is inherently bad, and the inverse, that everything else is wonderfully good. Thus, natural farts emitted by natural, organic, free range wildlife don't harm the environment at all. In fact, thermal radiation from the earth passes right through natural methane back into space, leaving the earth at its natural temperature. Unlike human tainted cow farts from feedlots.