4 ms·

I'm talking from the PoV of someone asking a question, rather than making a statement - since I did not study the subject. I merely noticed it on the side, with

I'm talking from the PoV of someone asking a question, rather than making a statement - since I did not study the subject. I merely noticed it on the side, without investigating deeper. What I find missing in all the cow discussions is any mention of the huge number of bovines that roamed suitable areas of the planet, such as the North American plains, before they were mostly killed off and made room for cows. Was the mass slaughter of buffalo that happened on 19th century USA good for climate? --Photo of a gigantic skull pile, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile-restored.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_skull_pile-restored... For how long and how many animals similar to cows were there before we killed them in most places? Why are the cows such a climate catastrophe now, but the previous gigantic wild herds were not? (An actual question, not a rhetorical one, as I said, I did not study or investigate this, only noticed it)? ------------- As far as my thinking goes, the main problem is and has been that we dig up ancient buried biomass (coal, gas, oil). We have an above-ground carbon cycle, and it does not really matter that much if there is stuff burned and carbon shifting around various forms, as long as it's in the above-ground cycle. The problem, to my knowledge, is that we fed gigantic amounts of below-ground carbon into the above-ground cycle. I did not check the numbers (someone, please?), I think below ground we have far more biomass than we could ever plant as forests above ground? That's why I'm not excited about tree-planting projects as "solution". As far as my understanding goes, only a complete shutdown of all coal, oil and gas extraction can even begin to address our problem. And then we still need to get a lot of carbon back underground. Cows act solely within the above-ground cycle, so I don't see them as a valid focus, but as a distraction. My focus would be on the processes that add below-ground carbon to the above-ground cycle. If the above-ground carbon cycle only has prehistoric amounts of carbon to begin with, would cows, burning forests, etc., still be a global climate problem? As far as I know, that's not the case (independent of local deforesting issues, just looking at the "global warming" problem). I know I'm ignoring always present movement - without humans - between above and below ground - only counting safely long-term stored carbon, not sure what those net movements are (without human activity)? I also ignore "details"; such as if carbon is in CO2 or CH4 in the atmosphere. I think that evens itself out longer term and would be enough for an above-ground cycle that is not increased artificially. Our problem is the speed with which we add below-ground sources to the above cycle.

throwawaytemp27 4y ago
Have you ever looked at a pie chart of mammal biomass by species. It goes Humans then cows then everything else is way back. I strongly strongly doubt that big dumb slow cows would be number 2 in biomass absent our loving burgers.
- nosianu 4y ago
  Uhm... I don't understand what the connection to my comment is? I did not (and did not intent to) make any reference to biomass, not indirectly either. At most, maybe cows now bs. wild bovine herds of the ancient past, which even if we only look at the number of buffalo killed in the US must have been gigantic, so no less than we have cows now, at worst only slightly less but I doubt we have reliable figures about the size of herds before humans killed many e.g. for Africa, Asia or India. As a Middle European, I know we had plenty of large bovines but killed them quickly early on, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs. I made no comparisons human-bovine.
  - throwawaytemp27 4y ago
    You mentioned the huge number of bovines in the past. I strongly doubt there were anything like the 1.5 billion cows there are now. One reason it’s impossible is that we have literally transformed huge land areas from forests and other types into land for cows. If you don’t get how what I’m saying related that is fine.
    - nosianu 4y ago
      > I strongly doubt Based on what? https://www.flatcreekinn.com/bison-americas-mammal/ https://www.flatcreekinn.com/bison-americas-mammal/ "The Bison: from 30 million to 325 (1884) to 500,000 (today)" So the estimate for the number of buffalo only in North America alone already includes hundreds of millions. Then we have Africa, Asia and Europe. That is easily that many bovines. The Eurasian steppes are (and were) even more vast than the ones in NA (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Steppe_Polecat_area.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Steppe_P...). Map for Africa, steppe and savannah: https://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Africas-Vegetation.jpg https://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/20... (also remember Africa is much larger than shown on our common Mercator maps, so those areas are even larger than they appear) There is no reason to assume the herds on other continents - before human hunting - were any less than the ones in NA. And bovines were not limited to the savannahs and steppes, just that there were the largest herds. Just look at the distribution map for the aurochs -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#/media/File:Aurochs_distribution.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#/media/File:Aurochs_di... -- it is much larger than just the steppe areas. It is not just bovines either - other groups of which include animals like deer, giraffes, elephants and many others are also plant eating large mammals. Also, I don't understand this modern need of saying things like "I honestly believe" and, in your case, "I strongly doubt". Feeling "strongly" does not improve the quality of your argument. In your first reply you even used "I strongly strongly doubt " - riiiight... I would like to see more focus on the facts than on the feelings. Or do you feel that we are in some sort of competition here? > If you don’t get how what I’m saying related that is fine. You still did not explain what your comparison of human to bovine biomass was supposed to be about, which was your original reply.

throwawaytemp27 4y ago

Have you ever looked at a pie chart of mammal biomass by species. It goes Humans then cows then everything else is way back. I strongly strongly doubt that big dumb slow cows would be number 2 in biomass absent our loving burgers.

nosianu 4y ago
Uhm... I don't understand what the connection to my comment is? I did not (and did not intent to) make any reference to biomass, not indirectly either. At most, maybe cows now bs. wild bovine herds of the ancient past, which even if we only look at the number of buffalo killed in the US must have been gigantic, so no less than we have cows now, at worst only slightly less but I doubt we have reliable figures about the size of herds before humans killed many e.g. for Africa, Asia or India. As a Middle European, I know we had plenty of large bovines but killed them quickly early on, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs. I made no comparisons human-bovine.
- throwawaytemp27 4y ago
  You mentioned the huge number of bovines in the past. I strongly doubt there were anything like the 1.5 billion cows there are now. One reason it’s impossible is that we have literally transformed huge land areas from forests and other types into land for cows. If you don’t get how what I’m saying related that is fine.
  - nosianu 4y ago
    > I strongly doubt Based on what? https://www.flatcreekinn.com/bison-americas-mammal/ https://www.flatcreekinn.com/bison-americas-mammal/ "The Bison: from 30 million to 325 (1884) to 500,000 (today)" So the estimate for the number of buffalo only in North America alone already includes hundreds of millions. Then we have Africa, Asia and Europe. That is easily that many bovines. The Eurasian steppes are (and were) even more vast than the ones in NA (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Steppe_Polecat_area.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Steppe_P...). Map for Africa, steppe and savannah: https://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Africas-Vegetation.jpg https://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/20... (also remember Africa is much larger than shown on our common Mercator maps, so those areas are even larger than they appear) There is no reason to assume the herds on other continents - before human hunting - were any less than the ones in NA. And bovines were not limited to the savannahs and steppes, just that there were the largest herds. Just look at the distribution map for the aurochs -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#/media/File:Aurochs_distribution.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#/media/File:Aurochs_di... -- it is much larger than just the steppe areas. It is not just bovines either - other groups of which include animals like deer, giraffes, elephants and many others are also plant eating large mammals. Also, I don't understand this modern need of saying things like "I honestly believe" and, in your case, "I strongly doubt". Feeling "strongly" does not improve the quality of your argument. In your first reply you even used "I strongly strongly doubt " - riiiight... I would like to see more focus on the facts than on the feelings. Or do you feel that we are in some sort of competition here? > If you don’t get how what I’m saying related that is fine. You still did not explain what your comparison of human to bovine biomass was supposed to be about, which was your original reply.