I found this in an online article this morning; however I was under the impression that with regards to feeding livestock the word "feedlot" means being out on pasture, grazing in the field. Am afraid I can't pinpoint the difference the author of the article is writing about:

"Dishearteningly for Irish agriculture, grass-fed cattle produce four times more methane through enteric fermentation than their feedlot cousins. We must start looking for agricultural alternatives."

Source: www.thejournal.ie/smart-farms-...ture-590632-Sep2012/

Thanks, Bea

Alas, no. Feedlot implies an area of confinement wherein cattle are overfed, usually on corn in the USA, so as to fatten them prior to sale to a slaughterhouse. Feedlots are often condemned as being cruel and unsanitary.

A similar operation is called a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, or CAFO, several of which exist near where I now live. http://www.cafothebook.org/

A feedlot is about as far as one can get from open pasture.

This is a farmer's daughter speaking, and maybe I am just too tired right now...but why is it "disheartening" that grass-fed cattle produce more methane than their feedlot cousins? Why is that bad?

I think that the thinking is that cattle being fed on open pastures is more ethically sound than being kept on feedlots. The news that the former produce more methane is disheartening because it's less 'green'.

but why is it "disheartening" that grass-fed cattle produce more methane than their feedlot cousins? Why is that bad?

Actually, they produce more methane because cows are meant to eat grass, but in feedlots they usually eat corn which they cannot really digest properly. I don't think that's disheartening. (Says this farmer's son.)

Some progress has been made: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06...all&_moc.semityn.www
But then if we all became vegetarians and only drank breast milk and then beer , we wouldn't need all those gassy cattle, and we'd all be a whole lot happier!

quote:

Actually, they produce more methane because cows are meant to eat grass, but in feedlots they usually eat corn which they cannot really digest properly.

z, if that's the reason, weren't the cows with methane the ones who ate grass? They weren't the ones who ate from feedlots so why would their food be "less green," as arnie says?

Because methane production is a natural byproduct of digestion?

Kalleh, the reason why the cows who produce the most methane are not as "green" is because methane is one of the greenhouse gasses that contribute global warming -- oops! I mean, global climate change.

According to Wikipedia, the main greenhouse gasses and their contribution to the total are
water vapor (H2O) - 36 – 72 %
carbon dioxide (CO2) - 9 – 26 %
methane (CH4) - 4 – 9 %
nitrous oxide (N2O) - no figure given
ozone (O3) - 3 – 7 %

But whether grass-fed or feedlot cattle produce more methane is debated. Studies are contradictory. I suspect many of them are designed to give the desired result. For example, Cecil Adams (The Straight Dope) says

quote:

A big advantage of grain finishing is that cattle get to the slaughterhouse sooner and thus produce less methane — just 13 percent of bovine greenhouse gas emissions are produced during the feedlot stage. One researcher estimates that grain-fed cattle produce a third to a half less methane than cows fed exclusively on grass.

(Emphasis mine)

The next paragraph says

quote:

Don't expect that to be the last word on the subject, though. A couple years ago two scientists from the Humane Society (Koneswaran and Nierenberg, 2008) claimed raising beef cattle on grass produced 40 percent less greenhouse gases and consumed 85 percent less energy than the feedlot method to boot.

Another Wikipedia article said

quote:

One reason that domesticated cows belch so much is because they are often fed foods that their digestive systems do not process, such as corn and soy. Some farmers have reduced belching in their cows by feeding them alfalfa and flaxseed, which are closer to the grasses that they had eaten in the wild before they were domesticated.[11]

Yep, most of the methane, about 95%, comes from cow burps. The other 5% comes from the other end.

For those who want to know the difference between a cow and a heifer, a stirk or a neat, this article's for you. I've long wondered where neatsfoot oil came from, whether there was such an animal called a neat. Now I know.

As always, Tinman, great job! Some think that animal-derived methane's adding to global warming is nothing new: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-g...oric-earth.html#nRlv

Agreed, Geoff.

Here I am, a farmer's daughter, and I've never heard of "stirk" or "neat." There were a lot of words on Tinman's site that I hadn't known.