They could reduce man's emissions by taking that new Big Mac on a tortilla off the menu.

© one word: Abomination

One more fart and I'll...

\hot like a nugget

I'm not sure but I think that 350,000 cattle must not be the entire McDonald's consumption. That seems rather low. Unless it is for the UK only.

I mean take a look at this: Link (new window)

I think that a fart collector on each cow would solve the problem and the farts could be used as motor fuel. We could cut the A-Rabs right out of the fuel market!!!!

Agrees.

natas6.0: Time Traveler

I like yer 'fart collector' idea..but I'm wondering if you could draw a design?


Okay..it's 100% for my entertainment

Some of the details have yet to be worked out. Remember it has to be cost effective!

Methane from cows and cow manure is already a pretty good way to keep your barn warm in the winter. Google is your friend.

This is a sniper cow farting on you from a rooftop. Your argument is invalid.

I dare anyone to GIS cow plug.

\not what you would think it was

carnifex2005: Agrees.

I am the clit commander!

/Approves

I just wish I could bite into a Quarter Pounder without it farting ketchup out the other side.

/why yes, I would like fries with that...

thats why im doing my part by eating more beef
/pass the steak
// plus an extra for my dog
/// are you gunna eat that burger?

They're so stupid! Don't they read all the comments by right-wingnutty, ditto heads here that totally disprove climate change (oops, I mean global warming)??
I can't believe they'd fall for that libtarded propaganda.
They're so stupid.

FTA: McDonalds will conduct a three-year study into methane emissions from cattle on 350 farms across Britain. Gas produced by flatulent livestock accounts for 4% of the UK's total carbon emissions. It is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse agent.

Can we agree that, in this case, global warming smells like bullshiat?

Don't forget to include the herds of indigenous reindeer, caribou, yaks, buffalo, etc. throughout the world that graze in the wild. I'm sure the eggheads thought to count the methane production of these millions of wild animals in their calculations.

Remember the stories from the 1800s of a moving mass of buffalo on the American plains containing millions and millions of head of buffalo? Compared to the relatively smaller amount of domesticated cattle present today, this must have had an affect on "global warming" before man slaughtered them all

"Hilary Benn, called for the food industry to look at ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of the government's 2030 food strategy, which was unveiled last week."

Read as "Benny Hill." Wishful thinking.

"food"

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11769

Time Traveler: I think that a fart collector on each cow would solve the problem and the farts could be used as motor fuel. We could cut the A-Rabs right out of the fuel market!!!!

Didn't they try that with the cats-for-rats thingy, and run into the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics paradox? Or do I have that confused with a Perpetual Motion Machine of the First Type?

Minsky: Ripped Cat Toy: Remember the stories from the 1800s of a moving mass of buffalo on the American plains containing millions and millions of head of buffalo? Compared to the relatively smaller amount of domesticated cattle present today, this must have had an affect on "global warming" before man slaughtered them all

I remain unconvinced that 130 million is relatively smaller than 65 million.

Facts. Liberal bias. You know the drill.

http://www.yellowstone.net/wildlife/bison.htm
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?contentid=226025

And also the relative fact that all those relatively fewer buffalo droppings and farts weren't concentrated into a comparatively smaller space and thus dissipated probably somewhat better, I would imagine. I can't help but think that even if the numbers were roughly even, the larger space the wild buffalo had to fart and poop in, and the natural sink for methane as opposed to all the concrete and steel we've got now had to account for something.

(man made greenhouse gasses) is less than (geological releases)

or

(man made greenhouse gasses) is less than (releases by the whole of oceanic life)

ect.

...and these have a large difference, not a tiny one.

Therefore we must kill all the life in the ocean and stop all volcanoes!

\not advocating burning old tires for disposal
\\no, I will not give citation
\\\you have a computer and know how to read

Minsky: Ripped Cat Toy: Remember the stories from the 1800s of a moving mass of buffalo on the American plains containing millions and millions of head of buffalo? Compared to the relatively smaller amount of domesticated cattle present today, this must have had an affect on "global warming" before man slaughtered them all

I remain unconvinced that 130 million is relatively smaller than 65 million.

Facts. Liberal bias. You know the drill.

http://www.yellowstone.net/wildlife/bison.htm
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?contentid=226025

Onkel Buck
Kimchee! I knew there were other Chowder fans older than 7 out there!

/Told you I was a cartoon geek...

Actually, in a cow, the burps were shown to produce far more methane than the farts. Cows have a 4-compartment stomach for the difficult task of digesting cellulose, which is a bit different than anything you're personally familiar with in terms of digestion and gas.

This wouldn't happen on Hoth:

/not mine
//from a PS contest back in 2005

I read somewhere that what you feed a cow matters, most farms feed cows grain, which cows are not designed to digest. (you also have to give them tons of antibiotics so they won't get sick) Cows are designed to eat grass, which is much more expensive and doesn't lent itself to factory farming, but they emit way less emissions...

danknight: Cows are designed to eat grass, which is much more expensive and doesn't lent itself to factory farming, but they emit way less emissions...

You also end up with higher beef prices. Not that its a bad thing, but its not really compatible with the North American diet.

danknight: I read somewhere that what you feed a cow matters, most farms feed cows grain, which cows are not designed to digest. (you also have to give them tons of antibiotics so they won't get sick) Cows are designed to eat grass, which is much more expensive and doesn't lent itself to factory farming, but they emit way less emissions...

You know absolutely farking nothing about cattle. Cows live almost their entire lives eating grass. Feeding a cow corn for its entire life would bring the price of a quarter pounder up to $30. Typically cows only go to feed lots after they are purchased from ranchers. They will spend a few weeks at the lot, getting fattened up, and then head out to the meatpacking plant and on to the grocery store. Do you know why they are fed grain right before slaughter? Because it makes them taste better, have more developed marbling, and command a higher price. What, you think they spent the time, effort and considerable expense just for shiats and giggles. Grass-fed beef tastes like ass.

Also, this whole methane BS is a crock. Where does that methane come from? What the cows eat. Which is grass or grain. Which is made up of water and CO2 taken from the air. After being farted out, that methane will last about 5-10 years in the atmosphere before being broken down into CO2 and water again. So methane production is clearly not like burning fossil fuels which add new carbon to the carbon-cycle, but is instead a temporary change of state and not a risk that builds up.