Bison vs Cow Greenhouse Gas “Emissions”

Screen Shot 2019-09-21 at 9.38.11 AM

This misleading bison-cattle comparison is making the rounds again.

First, it’s important to note that methane (CH4), the gas in question here, has 23-28 times the warming potential as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide.

Second, it’s also important to note that when my (and perhaps your) European immigrant ancestors invaded North America, the bison herds they encountered in the early 1700s on the prairies of the near West were indeed massive. Estimates are that there were between 30 – 60 million individuals. Sixty million is the high end that the bison image is using, but perhaps we can compromise and go with the average of 45 million. However, this estimated bison population was likely near its peak (or even declining) by this time; during the Little Ice Age of the 1300-1800s conditions were ideal in the near western prairies for plant growth and we think the bison population exploded to its 30 – 60 million levels as a result.

Bison Emissions. According to the research, the high end for the methane production of a single bison under controlled conditions and fed sun-cured alfalfa pellets (not prairie forage) is up to 30 kg per year. This is likely unnaturally high because of the unnatural diet the bison were fed in this study. But, since we do not have the natural number, we can go with this higher number. Thus, 45 million bison that roamed the pre-European invasion prairies could have potentially produced 1.35 billion kg of methane per year.

Screen Shot 2019-09-21 at 12.03.10 PM
Galbraith, J. K., Mathison, G. W., Hudson, R. J., McAllister, T. A., & Cheng, K. J. (1998). Intake, digestibility, methane and heat production in bison, wapiti and white-tailed deer. Canadian journal of animal science78(4), 681-691.

Cow Emissions. Now let’s look at cows. On average, mature U.S. beef cows emit between 54 and 62 kg/year of methane for an average of 58 kg/year. Dairy cows emit between 181 and 218 kg/year of methane for an average of 200 kg/year. Both these beef cattle and dairy cow numbers include the methane emissions from the management of the manure the animals produce. But notice, not all “cow” emissions are the same.

Screen Shot 2019-09-21 at 12.03.48 PM
Wolf, J., Asrar, G. R., & West, T. O. (2017). Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock. Carbon balance and management12(1), 16.

There are around 9 million dairy cows and 32 million beef cattle in the U.S. on any given day (2017 data), for 41 million individuals. Thus, the numbers in the bison image are correct! But the claim then challenges us (leftist scientific thinkers?) to show that “cow farts are more destructive to the environment than buffalo (bison) farts.”

Okay then.

The 9 million U.S. dairy cows have the potential to produce 1.8 billion kg of methane per year (200 kg/year X 9,000,000 cows). The 32 million U.S. beef cattle have the potential to produce 1.86 billion kg of methane per year (58 kg/year X 32,000,000 cattle). These 41 million dairy cows and beef cattle in the U.S. can produce an average of 3.66 billion kg of methane per year. That’s almost three times the methane production of the historical high for bison. Indeed, there would have to have been 180 million bison on the plains for them to produce as much methane as our beef cattle and dairy cows produce today. But the prairie ecosystems, even at their peak production of forage, most likely could not have supported that many bison. Plus, Native American populations, natural predators, competition, and disease were likely doing a nice job regulating the bison at ecosystem carrying capacity.

What is missing from these data are the global beef cattle and dairy cow methane emission numbers. In 2007, the IPCC estimated that livestock were responsible for ~44% of global anthropogenic methane production. In 2004 our global livestock systems were estimated to produce 2.16 trillion kg of methane per year. Estimates suggest that this amount has grown 30% in the last 15 years. Two-thirds (66%) of this amount comes from beef cattle and dairy cows. Note: In the figures below, the buffaloes indicated do not include the farmed and wild American bison that exist today. American Bison are actually not buffaloes.

 

Screen Shot 2019-09-21 at 12.57.21 PM
 Oā€™Mara, F. P. (2011). The significance of livestock as a contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions today and in the near future. Animal Feed Science and Technology166(167), 7-15.

Eat Less Meat. There are over 9 billion livestock (cattle, pigs, chickens turkeys, etc.) maintained each year in the U.S. and they outweigh the human population by five times. The average U.S. citizen consumes 124 kg (273 lbs) of meat per year, including 44 kg (97 lbs) of beef. Thus, our average beef consumption alone is roughly 0.25 lbs (a quarter pounder!) a day. Moreover, the ratio of non-renewable energy input (its own source of greenhouse gas emissions) to protein energy output in beef production is 40:1. When we add these data to the fact that around 14.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions come from our livestock supply chain, and of that 14.5%, 44% is in the form of methane from dairy cows and beef cattle, it is easy to conclude that our meat consumption is unsustainable on several environmental levels.

If we can find a way to reduce our global intake of meat and milk products over the next decade, we can have a measurable impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and thus on future increases in the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Posting (and reposting) short, simple claims on social media is risky; they’re often misleading, do not tell the whole story, or are completely wrong. Do the research and ask the experts before you use these unsourced claims for your own political or social agendas.

39 Comments

  1. I have been hunting for this scientific data for a year! I’m so happy to find this article. I’m going to casually pull up this information the next time someone mentions this issue.

    Like

    1. Methane emissions from livestock are only one source. What about the emissions from the manufacturing of fertilizers and pesticides used on crops? How much diesel is used by farm equipment? Check out this research: Emissions of methane from the industrial sector [fertilizer manufacturing] have been vastly underestimated, researchers from Cornell University and Environmental Defense Fund have found. This is only 1 industry.

      Like

    2. Forget cow farts, what about the methane produced by wetlands and marshlands, which combined that with bison as well? There were a lot more marshlands and wetlands back when The Bison were roaming the plains that should probably be included in the calculations.

      Like

  2. You have not compared methane emissions between grass-fed cattle and cattle fed corn, silage and other unnatural feed that they did not evolve eating. Dairy cattle in large commercial operations seldom have access to grass; some never leave the barn. This is apparent in the difference in emissions that you report. Cattle that are raised on grasslands can be managed to benefit the land. Without cattle grazing the taller grasses, new grass is slower to grow and sequester carbon, and the land starts to desertify. Tall, dry grass becomes a fire hazard. Regenerative agriculture and better cattle management could be the solution. This is opposite the effect of modern farming methods where large equipment compacts the soil, kills small wildlife, reduces habitat for birds, and increases soil erosion. Furthermore, in a study done at Cornell University in 2019, fertilizer manufacturers produced inadvertent losses of methane to the atmosphere at rates 100 times more than was reported to the EPA. These losses of methane could be as much as 28 gigagrams annually from this industry. In addition, manufactured fertilizer only replaces nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus to the soil, but no trace minerals which are essential for good health. What about methane emissions produced by the pesticide industry? Or the amount of diesel used by farm equipment. What are your estimates for those?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. All excellent points and questions. My goal was to make as simple an argument as possible. What you are suggesting is comprehensive analysis that might even qualify as a publishable peer reviewed paper. Quite different from my quick little blog post. If only I had more time…

      Like

  3. according to the study: Effect of the macroalgae Asparagopsis taxiformis on methane production and rumen microbiome assemblage.

    Breanna Michell Roque, Charles Garrett Brooke, Joshua Ladau, Tamsen Polley, Lyndsey Jean Marsh, Negeen Najafi,

    adding the seaweed Asparagopsis taxiformis, to dairy cow feed at 5% by weight; reduced methane production by 95%, without any negative impact on fatty acid production (aka butterfat).

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Looks like this is a hard number to pin down. I wasn’t considering calves in the data; around 35 million calves are born each year. I also didn’t work the 33 million individuals that are slaughtered for meat each year. Indeed, it’s a far more complex calculation than I’ve attempted. My guess, as you’ve indicated, is that I’ve low-balled the estimate.

      Like

      1. Pre-European invasion? I think the first folks came across the Bering Straits so wouldn’t that make it pre-Russian invasion.
        Bison numbers are low, the 60 million is for the great plains only, not the entire U.S. please redo study with correct numbers.

        Like

  4. Thank you. I have been looking for these ratios and data for a while. It seems nature has a formula for animals such as bison (megaherbivores) methane production in check. Perhaps we need to target our animal food consumption to a similar target. is there such a report that provides what that is before humans started industrializing farming?

    Like

  5. Look up regenerative agriculture. The bison grazing on the lands was actually a good thing. Us clear cutting lands, desertification, and the cows *burps* which is the actual problem, is unnatural in this area. The bison feeding off the undisturbed land was natural. Great job, all your work and effort for nothing. There are better ways to eat and the world needs change in our agricultural system, not more people in denial like you.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. a couple of questions. do you factor in anywhere that almost all dairy cows end up as meat cows at the end of their milk making cycle? have you factored in methane production for corn fed beef as opposed to free range or grass feed beef. last, the bison appears to ,especially the males, dress out with a lot more meat per animal. is there anywhere that might show poundage of meat produced per kg. of methane in both beef and bison.

    Like

  7. There is truly only one source of additive carbon into the environment since 1755. We can not deny the first law of thermodynamics yet we do this all the time. Earth is a closed system, life exists in a carbon cycle. We are continually bombarded by thermonuclear radiation from the sun that through billions of years of photosynthesis has placed a certain amount of planetary carbon into the earthā€™s crust. We have released that carbon through old growth deforestation and oil/gas exploration. While bison vs cattle is interesting, the meme is still conceptually appropriate. Caribou, elk, deer, bison were featured throughout the North American continent and that is just one continent. Think about all the ruminants on the entire globe. By the logic that cattle are uniquely bad, you are in essence admitting to a flawed logic argument because that means you are discerning between wild vs domestic ruminants. Now that being said there are things that we can do to make rearing ruminants for consumption more akin to wild grazing. That should be explored. If the carbon doesnā€™t get trapped back into the crust then we are not accomplishing anything. Remember cows, elk, deer, gazelles, horses, etc. eat grass and plants. In those animals, water, air, and grass are the inputs that produce the atmospheric carbon that we vilify but it is truly only the escaped carbon from the earthā€™s crust that is additive. Again you can pick apart the meme but itā€™s a completely valid statement ā€œconceptuallyā€ although the details are off as you have mentioned.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. All good points. However, the atmosphere is a biological construction and we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the biological systems can cycle. In other words, we’ve exceeded the critical load of the system. Indeed, ruminants like cows have been around for several millions of years, but cows get most of their calories from feed corn, not grass, and we raise so many domestically each year the we must use 100 million acres of land each year just to grow the food to feed them. That process is also carbon intensive.

      Like

  8. Thanks for putting this article together. Very productive conversation unlike some others I’ve seen recently. One comment, I also find the story of GHGs per unit of meat is also worth exploring. From what I understand, the GHG intensity per pound of meat in North America is much less than the rest of the world, in part due to livestock genetics that make bigger animals (more meat per animal fart), feed additives, etc. This coupled with good grazing practices could actually heal a lot of degraded land and offset a lot of carbon, until these systems reach saturation at least. Last I saw, the figures USDA reports on GHG emissions from cows was 4% of total GHGs. For sure we can do better on this story, but to me it makes more sense to focus on larger emitters where alternate options exist before we go after our food chain. Additionally, supporting ag practices globally that draw down carbon could be very fruitful and make developing economies more resilient.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Railroads, like Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern, according to a NASA study, should have baffles at 1/3 and 2/3 the length of each coal car. The baffles increase the aerodynamic efficiency of the cars by 30% on the return empty leg of the train. Without these baffles, we are talking about tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel squandered each year in North America. Why is no one picketing Warren Buffet as diesel fuel costs are higher as a result and the costs of everything moved by truck are higher as a result of that. It is my opinion that baffled coal cars should be mandatory and should have a bar code designation that gives them a free pass where ever the railroad barcodes are read. Without the bar code, a fine for that car should be assessed back to the railroads and to the investor car owners. It should be possible to build a baffle machine that straddles the train and installs baffles while coal unit trains are slowly moving through the loading points. Costs of the baffles could be billed back to the investor car owners. The fines for each trip unbaffled should be equal to the cost of the baffles being installed to encourage quick compliance.

    Like

  10. Unselfconsciously and casually mentions previous ice age (thereby acknowledging medieval warm period by definition) whilst “proving” why cattle farts create more global warming than bison. Haha. Classic (un) Scientismā„¢. Enjoy the minimum.

    Like

    1. The medieval climate anomaly is an irrelevant analogue for the magnitude of climate change we are currently facing. For example, globally, the planet was still cooler on average than today. Temperatures experienced since 2000 in the northern hemisphere are already hotter than any time during the Medieval warm period. Moreover, the anomaly produced an asynchronous regional warming caused by natural climatic variation; our current warming is a homogeneous event.

      Like

  11. Iā€™m really happy to see that so many people have learned about the difference between managed grazing, a.k.a., mob-grazing, or regenerative agriculture versusā€¦ well everything else.

    Im not much of a meat or dairy consumer, but Iā€™ve watched hundreds of hours on Youtube of Greg Judyā€™s farm and many other regenerative ranching channels and have seen fields that were destroyed by conventional farming come back to life in two or three years. And now these fields store massive amounts of carbon.

    I donā€™t know the difference between how much methane Regen Ag cattle produce versus how much conventionally raised cattle produce. I would like to know.

    Like

  12. Why are you including the methane emissions from the Cattle manure, but not from the Buffalo manure? Seems like that is an unfair (biased) comparison, as to intentionally drive the Cattle numbers higher. Additionally, the original meme addressed “farts”, not methane emissions from the manure.

    It is also stated that methane has a greater greenhouse capacity. What is not stated is that methane breaks down in the atmosphere (into CO2 and H2O / water vapor).

    To me this is a biased evaluation that presents only data and facts that support a pre-defined conclusion.

    But what do I know, I am just an engineer who has been working with compressed gasses for nearly 30 years.

    Like

    1. I think the difference in the manure calculation might be the way cattle manure is processed to recover methane. It is usually anaerobically digested to yield methane. This is usually burned as fuel, producing CO2 and water (and that is not noted in this article.) Field manure is aerobically digested by natural bacteria to produce CO2 and water. So to me, that statistic is a wash. and shouldn’t be quoted as a contributing factor to commercial cattle management.

      Like

      1. In Uk data around 20% of GHG emissions are from manure management and only 40% of the manure produced by cattle is handled and managed. The rest falling on the pasture/fields. Emissions includes methane, carbon dioxide and Nitrous oxide. To say manures are usually anaerobically digested for energy production is untrue. Apologies that this is UK data, but of the 140 million tonnes of animal manures produced in the UK only 1.1 million tonnes were treated through AD. I understand the UK is well ahead of US in terms of AD due to the generous subsidies weā€™ve had for the last 15 years. Itā€™s difficult to make the AD of animal manures economically viable due to the low methane potential of manures. The recent upturn in the value of methane should help increase the amount of manures treated through AD

        Like

  13. I am so glad that you posted this! I worked at a vegan restaurant a few years ago, and I love vegan food…but I was always wondering about this cow/bison dynamic and none of my friends wanted to explore this topic. Raising bison instead of cattle has its own set of challenges, but if raised on natural prairie forage, which also sequesters carbon, could be a potential solution to our environmental issues on many fronts.

    Like

  14. I am curious. The number of Bison in the 1800s is a relatively low number. I’ve seen estimates as high as 75 million. But on another front, what was the number of large mammals before the younger dryas period? Bison were still around, but Mammoths, Wooly Rhinos, Horses, even Camels and other large mammals roamed the plains.

    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/05/ancient_arctic_mystery_solved_what_did_a_woolly_rhino_do_for_food_new_study_has_profound_answers.html

    This doesn’t include large populations of Moose, Elk, Deer, and other animals that were herbivores emitting large amounts of grasses, leaves, and other diets that are responsible for emitting methane? This also doesn’t include the massive amounts of smaller animals that were abundant or, yes, even insects producing C02 (which, from my understanding, eating insects can be a toxic to humans anyway, but current insect populations are rife with insecticides which is even more terrible for human consumption)

    How do you square away a desire to have an earth that was once “Jungle Earth” and “Ice Earth” with the current concept of “climate change”? Is the concept of climate change purely an anthropologic worry? It seems to be in my view, simply because even if we “ruin” the earth and it is no longer inhabitable by humans….the history of the earth shows that it is in no danger of becoming lifeless…ever. Not until, at least, the sun begins to expand and consume the inner planets.

    So what’s the worry? That humans will no longer exist? It seems contradictory considering that the view held by many people concerning carbon emissions is that humans are a kind of parasite anyway.

    Just some questions. Perhaps a thesis is in order. A good, concise, non-biased and multi-disciplinary one.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. An intriguing discussion. Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 Parts Per Million (pre-industrial average, demonstrate by ice core samples from Antarctica and Greenland) to nearly 420 Parts Per Million, now, nearly a 50 percent increase. I think it’s safe to say most of that gain came from the consumption of fossil fuels. The solution is rarely framed accurately, Careless phrases like “emission reduction” or “let’s have carbon taxes” miss the actual point entirely. It’s the appliances our lives depend on that shape our fuel consumption habits. My wife and I used to have a gas furnace, a gas oven, and a gas stovetop. (The house came with an electric hot water heater). When the furnace threatened to give out, we ended up putting in a geothermal heat pump, which was surprisingly more pleasant than what we’d had before. And we switched to an electric oven and magnetic induction stovetop, which we also appreciated. Now here’s the key energy statistic for the U.S. Eighty five percent of America’s energy consumption – Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation – is from fossil fuels. How do we reduce THAT percentage? There’s only one way. Replace appliances that require gas (or oil or coal) with appliances that run on electricity, and follow Mark Jacobson’s recommendations (Stanford Renewable Energy expert) for powering the economy with Wind, Wave power, and Solar. But the would-be good guys have a very hard time letting go of their loose rhetoric about “emission reductions.” What’s needed is full throttle emission elimination, and the only thing that does THAT is switching to appliances that don’t need fossil fuels. Sorry to interrupt this interesting discussion about animal methane burps, but hey, the thing that really takes us to a safer energy future is changing out EVERY appliance that uses fossil fuels and switching to electric-powered equivalents. OK to let up on eating beef, but golly, there’s so much more leverage in switching out appliances that that’s where the heavy lifting needs to happen. It’ll be an arduous process, but, alas, it’s also unavoidable.

    Like

  16. How did you convert the 30kg of Dry matter intake of the Bison to methane? I missed that step somehow

    Like

Leave a comment