Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
> Far better for the environment to lock all that up in a cow.

This works for trees, which you can turn into, say, a house, where it might last hundreds of years.

I'm curious about how you think the physics of it work for a cow.

A pile of solid carbohydrates (grass) can rot and go largely to water and released gases OR it can be eaten by an animal and goto some water, some gases, some poo, and a reasonable amount of energy and some conversion to meat for growth.

Methane release varies by animal type: https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/kangaroos-the-soluti...

Understanding why is ongoing: https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2015/why-kangaroos-really-emit-...

> A pile of solid carbohydrates (grass) can rot and go largely to water and released gases OR it can be eaten by an animal and goto some water, some gases, some poo, and a reasonable amount of energy and some conversion to meat for growth.

That meat gets eaten and largely turned into poo and gas (as byproduct of using up that stored energy), yeah? You're sequestering it maybe for a few years; meat cows live about two years.

> “Kangaroos have a very different stomach from that of ruminants such as sheep and cows,” Professor Clauss said. “We think that the methane is low because of the way food moves through the kangaroo stomach, and not because of a unique gut fauna.”

> Dr Munn and Professor Clauss are critical of efforts to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant livestock by replacing their gut fauna with that from kangaroos or other low-methane emitting animals, which they believe is unlikely to succeed.

You're not raising kangaroos in Scotland, right?

loading story #50434335
the cow is part of it, but not the whole part.

A well managed grass meadow is a carbon sink. As the parent says, the cows graze and shite which causes more growth. if you rotate your cow out before they eat everything back to the earth, it makes the grass grow thicker.

because not all of the grass is eaten, a fair portion is left to eventually die off and form the next layer of soil, trapping the carbon there.

The reason why cows are considered global warming is because forests tend to be felled to form feeding lots. Or in more tropical areas, grasslands that then decay precipitously. (see dustbowl causes in the prairies and why the USA spent a huge amount on soil preservation)

Its not a one size fits all thing. In Aus, over grazing leads to desertification, which causes sun baking. This means the soil is baked into a water resisting layer that causes flash floods. But, because its flash flooding, the water isn't dwelling and soaking in, causing the place to get drier.

In Yorkshire, overgrazing lead to the tree-less desolate expanse which is the dales.

In the lowlands of Scotland, they went and planted a shit tonne of pine to try and compensate/bring back forestry, but that turned the soil acid and killed the streams.

> The reason why cows are considered global warming is because forests tend to be felled to form feeding lots.

This is not the sole reason, no.

Immense amounts of fossil fuel (and water) go into fertilizing alfalfa, corn, etc. fields that are grown to inefficiently feed cattle with.

Okay, and how do you propose to grow trees there?
What, among the solar panels?

You grow the trees elsewhere. Like we currently do. Forests make good carbon sinks.