In recent years in different parts of the world Livestock production is blamed for its significant contribution to the global warming of the planet Fermentation by methane production in the stomachs of smaller animals. There are many misconceptions about the magnitude of this effect, which is why it is advisable to know the opinions of technicians who have studied the subject in serious research institutions.

“Methane production started first in Europe – in the Netherlands, Germany, etc .; Then spread to the United States, Where some districts began to impose regulations and Then went to South America and Asia, “There are rumors about the negative impact of livestock on the planet’s climate,” he said in the introduction. Frank Mittloner, Dr. Agronomist, Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis. Is his specialty Study of air quality and interactions with cattle.

He then explained that good communication on the subject is important. “Because activists interfere a lot” And it is necessary that In order to avoid miscalculations, the ranchers give the right answers to public opinion. “

In his speech at a meeting convened by the Chamber of Feedlot of Argentina, using very accurate data, Showed that methane emissions from cattle accounted for 0.5% of the total in the United States; And up to 0.6% received from agriculture. Meanwhile, caused by burning Fossil fuels are responsible for 11% The rest is the result of other human activities that do not belong to agriculture. In particular, Consumers have contributed to global warming, but that doesn’t matter; Other gas emitters are much more gravitational.

He later explained this Among the gases that cause global warming, the most important is carbon dioxide, not methane. They are too Dangerous nitrogen oxides and chlorofluorocarbons. For example, Nitric oxide Has a global warming potential index of 265, compared to methane 28 and The movie would be “The villain.” In other words, it is impossible to generalize the negative effects of different greenhouse gases.

Mitlohner later explained this Methane enters the atmosphere in different ways, but at the same time it largely decomposes. In the gas balance, he showed that the main emissions are the burning of fossil fuels and biomass, the production of swamps and, to a lesser extent, agriculture, but there are forces acting in the opposite direction that are destroying it. These are natural oxidation reactions in the atmosphere and soil. In particular, There is methane input and output in the balance that stabilizes the final air content. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, does not decompose spontaneously.

He also argued that Insects do not add harmful carbon to the atmosphere. “Plants get carbon dioxide from the air; Together with the sun, water and nutrients, it converts it into carbohydrates through photosynthesis. Creeping consumes food and fermentation produces methane in the bump. This methane enters the atmosphere, but it is not an additional carbon; This is the original that the plants took ” Listed. Also, as has been said, part is destroyed by oxidation. That is, no harmful additional carbon is produced during animal production because methane is converted back to carbon dioxide.

This process is different from the process of using fossil fuels. When burned, they directly produce carbon dioxide, which is minimally absorbed by the oceans, so emissions are not neutralized. And because of its long half-life, carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere.

Finally, the expert differentiated Behavior of carbon dioxide and methane in the air. The first accumulates over time as it remains in the environment. Instead, the methane concentration may remain stable because the rate of destruction due to oxidation neutralizes the emission. Because of this nature, “both gases cannot be equated with their impact on global warming,” he argued.

,Finally, Global warming will increase if carbon dioxide production continues to grow; On the other hand, when methane emissions are stable, there will be no impact on the atmosphere. In addition, insects are not the main source of emissions in the overall production of global warming gases.

Challenges

In addition to what is described in terms of secondary cases of global warming, the challenge is related to the reduction in methane emissions they are carrying out. There are several trails. For example, Ingredients are added to the ration to help reduce gas production.

In limited farms, researchers have tested and obtained good results with algae and fatty acid-based products. They also test for condensed tannins, nitrates, oregano extract, monensin and saponins that inhibit some unwanted microorganisms in the abdomen.

These alternatives can be of significant use to beef companies in Europe, where animal quality is limited. Its use will be more limited in the United States, where the diet is free and pastoral. Utilities in the country will be limited as there are not many professional dishes that can be added to the ration for long periods of food.

On the other hand, in Argentina, where a large proportion of livestock enterprises rely on pastoral nutrition, a practical way to reduce crude methane production may be to improve the quality of the diet. The challenge will be, for example, in a semi-arid region switching from a large amount of fiber intake to another with more digestibility and flavor, which will produce less methane during fermentation. Clearly, this technological change can be implemented when Rangers face stable rules of the game in the long run.

On the other hand, all the management that will increase the efficiency and productivity of livestock systems will contribute to the low intensity of emissions; That is, producing the same or similar gas would produce a larger quantity of product. These managements include increasing uterine fertility, health control, genetic selection, and so on. This practice will maintain the number of animals (supplies), but will bring more kilograms to the Argentine table.

Methane as a fuel

Methane production by other animals has other aspects. “It can become an opportunity from danger” Mitlohner expected. The visitor said so California production of this gas has decreased since 2015 by 2.2 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. This means 25% reduction in methane emissions in the dairy industry.

This was done by encouraging dairy farmers from the California government to cover their lagoons with plastic blankets that trapped the methane produced. The generated biogas can be transported in networks and generated by service stations for the distribution of biofuels.

It should be clarified that this mechanism of methane capture cannot be carried out in the deposits due to the lack of adequate infrastructure and the constant flow of nutrient material for the fermentation bacteria.

,Finally, Mitlohner called on livestock producers “not to be afraid of the accusations they make about methane pollution.” In contrast, he advised more to participate in discussion tables on the subject, display data and highlight the benefits of the production systems they use to serve humanity, which will reach 10,000 million people by 2050. Latest estimates.