How do cattle affect the environment?

A:

This answer is insufficient and not based on the most recent studies, conducted by a variety of agencies and institutions.

The primary sources of methane come from burning of petroleum, coal mining, natural gas and oil exploration and extraction, and from oceans, wetlands, forests, and other materials. Methane gas production from rice paddies account for the second largest source. Human-related activities account for 70% of all methane emissions, which total more than 550 million tons per year. According to reports by Texas A&M University, U. S beef cattle production is responsible for 2.9 Tg per year, translating to about 0.5% of the total estimated world production of methan per year. Methane is responsible for only 18% of all global warming sources, meaning 7% of the world methane production comes from cattle (including buffalo).

Cattle will not graze to the "bare earth." Cattle, like buffalo, are ruminants and graze naturally and are also efficient in controlling noxious plant overgrowth. In fact, cattle, like buffalo, can convert dry matter in hills, mountains, even forested areas where grass dries out (fire hazard overgrowth) into protein, acting as an efficient recycling animal in the natural environment. More than 1.1 billion acres of land are classified by the U.S. government as land UNSUITABLE for farming, whether because of topography or climate. Cattle can use this resource and vegetation, protecting lands from wildfire and using a resource for growing a food source. In conservation land tracts, where cattle graze, the improvement of the land is visible and documented.

Their hooves act to stir the soil, move and transplant grass seed. They do not overgraze, by nature; they roam naturally and continually. They are also creatures of habit, crossing streams in a line, not damaging the banks like many people assume. According to reports released by universities, USDA, BLM, and USFS, it is now believed that grass-fed beef contribute to the reversal of greenhouse gasses. Pastures and grasslands store carbon, vs. releasing it into the atmosphere.

According to one Oregon range manager, "Without controlled grazing, the forage on public lands will become wolfy (Not succulent), [and] big game will move to private lands." Moreover, grazing protects the environment by "building soils, protecting water and riparian areas, and enhancing habitat." In Canada, ranchers and farmers are PAID to take cattle, sheep, and goats into the mountains to help protect from major wildfires.

A:

there is one disadvantage. since farting is a source of methane in which is carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide is a source of global warming. since cows are big they affect global warming a little.

there are many advantages. Cows produce organic fertilizer and also keep pasture as part of greenspace. Cattle are able to graze on lands that should never be tilled, thus reducing erosion.

A:

There is more to the answer: Cattle are "environmentally friendly" and are efficient recyclers. Most of the feed they consume is forage and grass/hay or byproducts, but not grain. In fact, only 15% of all feed grains produced in the U.S. are fed to beef cattle. Cattle, or bovine, are ruminants, with four stomachs (like the bison/buffalo), thus they have the ability to convert forage and roughage, including discarded agricultural byproducts (eg: almond hulls, potato remnants, sugar beet pulp, corn stalks, grain screenings, oil seed residues, brewers' grain and millers' residues), then convert them into human food. They can use wheat and other grains that have been discarded because of early sprouting or adverse weather conditions.

They can also take dry matter in rangelands or on hillsides that are actually FIRE HAZARDS and convert them into muscle/meat. Grass-fed cattle live in regions NOT conducive to crop production, whether because of elevation, water-accessiblity, or climate/topography. In fact, of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the total U.S., about 470 million are listed as cropland; approximately 19% of that is used for feed grain production, thus there is NO LARGE DISPLACEMENT of acreage from production of human food into production of feed fo animals. More than 85% of all grazing lands in the U.S. are actually not suited to crop cultivation. Rather than consuming HUMAN food stuffs, almost 85% of the nutrients they consume comes from unusable sources or from areas not suitable for farming.

According to Texas A & M University experts, cattle are NOT a significant contributor; it is responsible for 2.9 Tg per year - which translates to about 0.5% of the total estimated world production of methane each year. Only 7% of world methane production likely comes from cattle. Driving to the store to shop for groceries accounts for 100 times MORE "greenhouse gas" than a hamburger. Moreover, centuries of buffalo/bison across the North American continent would have been just as culpable as today's cattle. In addition, claims that U.S. forest land converted to grazing/farm lands has been spurred on by cattle, are misleading. Between 1900 and 1980, the number of U.S. forest lands converted to other uses was 64 million acres; in fact, forest land decreased by only 9 percent. Millions of forest lands are reforested every year, which means that timber is a resource that is being conserved, not used up. Much more important and significant have been the conversion of woodland and FARMLAND into urban development.

Note: Their hooves act to stir the soil, move and transplant grass seed. They do not overgraze, by nature; they roam naturally and continually. They are also creatures of habit, crossing streams in a line, not damaging the banks like many people assume. MOREOVER, according to recent studies, GRASS-FED BEEF ARE BELIEVED TO HELP REVERSE THE GREEHNOUSE EFFECTS. Pastures and grasslands store carbon, vs. releasing it into the atmosphere!

A:

Actually in 2008 the UN's top climate scientist stated that cattle are the number one cause for greenhouse gas increases - more than transportation. According to very thorough studies by the UN, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO₂ equivalent - 18% in fact. And cattle are also a "major source of land and water degradation" (UN top scientists again) and cattle generate 65% of human-related nitrous oxide which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO₂. Cattle also produce 64% of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain. For far more information and carefully researched and validated statistics see the Food and Agriculture Organization reports on the UN's website.

And - while yes, some land is being reforested, often the reforesting is done with monocultures of even-aged trees that are all cut after a rotation time and the land is once again replanted with seedlings (again, all even-aged) which basically adds up to another form of crop agriculture rather than ecologically functional forests.

And, according to scientists at Cornell University, more than1/2 the grain grown in the US is being fed to cattle and if that grain was directly fed to people it would feed over 800 million people, or if exported, would boost the US trade balance by over $80 billion.

Further, let's talk about trophic levels, which at each level substantial amounts of energy are lost (almost 90% per level) and, as cattle are not producers (the first level) and often not even primary consumers (unless grass fed) the amount of energy gained per unit is drastically reduced by the time humans eat the beef. VERY inefficient food production.

Further, scientists have calculated energy-conversion efficiencies and such efficiencies have direct ramifications for land use with cattle requiring over 20 kg of feed input per 1 kg of edible weight. Compare that to chickens (2.8 kg to 1 kg of edible weight), eggs ( 4.5 kg to 1 kg of edible weight) and milk (1.1 kg to 1 kg). The land required to produce 1 kg of protein from beef is over 245 m2 whereas eggs only use 22.m2 per 1 kg protein and chicken 14 kg per 1 kg protein.

BUT here's the astonishing fact - from 440 to over 1,000 gallons of water are required to produce (are you ready?) only 1 kg of protein from beef! The amount of water used to produce 1 kg of protein in chickens is 50 kg and eggs require only 15 kg per 1 kg of protein.

Another very interesting fact is that one (1) cow can produce over 20,000 kg of waste in a single year and poor containment practices in states such as NC and MD have been linked to outbreaks of Pfiesteria and other diseases. And, feedlot (CAFOs - concentrated animal feeding operations) that are basically huge warehouses for extremely dense populations of animals often require heavy doses of antibiotics be given to the animals to control diseases and these chemicals can be transferred up the food chain and their constant use can cause microbes to evolve resistance to them as well.

As for not destroying stream banks as they are said to "cross streams in a line" ask yourself when the last time was you saw cattle behaving in such a manner - they are almost always spread out, eating at will and not following lockstep down embankments unless there is no other manner in which to cross. Just come to public lands in the West and see for yourself.

And - cattle and bison graze/browse in different manners than the bison (i.e. true bison - not bison/cattle hybrids) with bison changing locations far more frequently and eating grasses differently than cattle thereby causing less environmental damage.

Also - if the government has designated land as unsuitable for agriculture, why would we then put cattle on said land to degrade it further possibly leading to desertification - a major problem with cattle grazing in the arid West?

And - let's talk about the number of invasive grass species that have been introduced in cattle forage that have/are quickly taking over the place of native vegetation that native animals rely on for food sources (and remember that cattle are NOT native species). For instance - in the 1920's tons of Johnson grass seed was bought as cattle feed from the Sears and Roebuck catalog where it was advertised as a "wonderful" cattle food. It is now a major invasive species and it hybridizes with cultivated sorghum and produces 'shattercane', which is agriculturally worthless. Then there is bufflegrass (Pennisetum ciliare), Bromus rubens (red brome), Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass - well named as it pushes out native grasses and is seldom used as forage by native species - and is also a huge contributor to wildfires due to its growth habits and its widespread domination of Western landscapes), torpedograss (Panicum repens), et al.

And finally - let's talk about the native species that have been poisoned, trapped, shot, and otherwise killed by the millions (literally) so that non-native cattle can have free range of public lands at a subsidized rate to ranchers which taxpayers subsidize. I am thinking of wolves, coyotes, foxes, bobcats, prairie dogs, ferrets, bears, etc. Wildlife Dis -Services, a department of the USDA,spends millions of taxpayer dollars every year (again, literally) to kill 100,000+ of many of the above animals primarily at the request of the Western grazing industry - often on public lands, which are supposedly owned by you and me.

First answer by Steerqueen. Last edit by Terra Crampton. Contributor trust: 1 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 1 [recommend question]