Having finished milking the cows I had a milk snack and read the article "Debunking the Myth: Why 'Cow Fart' Vaccines Will Not Solve Climate Change," published on February 15, 2025, at Natural News.com. The article critically examines the proposal to develop vaccines aimed at reducing methane emissions from cattle as a strategy to combat climate change.
The article challenges claims that livestock methane emissions significantly contribute to global warming. It highlights that methane, while potent, has a relatively short atmospheric lifespan of about 12 years, compared to carbon dioxide's centuries-long persistence. The article also notes that the assertion of livestock being responsible for 30 percent of global warming is misleading, as this figure includes all methane sources, not just those from livestock. But that is the ideology that the anti-farmers of the World Economic Forum go for.
There is a questionable efficacy of "cow fart" vaccines. The article questions the effectiveness of vaccines designed to reduce methane emissions from cattle. It suggests that such vaccines may be unnecessary and potentially harmful, misallocating resources and diverting attention from more significant sources of emissions.
Alternative solutions should be considered. The article advocates for focusing on proven methods of environmental stewardship and sustainable agriculture to address climate change, rather than pursuing unproven and potentially ineffective interventions like "cow fart" vaccines.
In short, the article argues that developing vaccines to reduce methane emissions from cattle is an ineffective and misdirected approach to combating climate change. I will not have a bar of it on my farm, but unfortunately the cult of using these vaccines is spreading in the Australian dairy and meat industries.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-02-15-cow-fart-vaccines-not-solve-climate-change.html
"In a recent CNN article, the idea of a vaccine to reduce methane emissions from cattle was presented as a promising solution to mitigate climate change. However, this narrative fails to address several critical issues and overstates the impact of livestock on global warming. As a natural health advocate and farmer, it's essential to set the record straight.
Understanding the methane myth
Methane, a greenhouse gas, is indeed more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term. However, it is significantly short-lived in the atmosphere, lasting only about 12 years, compared to the centuries that carbon dioxide can persist. The CNN article claims that livestock accounts for about a third of human-related methane emissions, which are responsible for 30% of global warming. This statement is misleading and misinterprets the data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The IEA does mention that methane is responsible for about 30% of global warming, but this figure encompasses all sources of methane, not just livestock. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), beef production in the United States accounts for only 2% of all greenhouse gas emissions, with methane from cows' digestive processes being only a part of that. In contrast, agricultural crop production contributes 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This disparity suggests that focusing on livestock methane is misplaced.
Moreover, a recent paper by physicists William Happer, Ph.D., of Princeton University, and W. A. van Wijngaarden, Ph.D., of York University, concludes that methane's contribution to warming is minimal. They state, "the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide." This scientific assessment undermines the rationale for developing a "cow fart" vaccine.
Historical context and misleading science
The issue of livestock emissions and climate change is not new. In 2006, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published a report titled "Livestock's Long Shadow," which claimed that livestock production was responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions—more than all transportation combined. However, this claim was later debunked.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner, an animal scientist and air quality specialist at the University of California-Davis, found that the UN scientists used flawed methodology. They included all energy used in every stage of meat production, from fertilizers to meat-packing, but failed to do the same for the transportation sector, counting only tailpipe emissions. Pierre Gerber, a co-author of the report, admitted, "I must say honestly that he has a point – we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport."
This admission places the 2006 report and its high estimates of livestock emissions in serious doubt. Dr. Mitloehner's research shows that raising cattle and pigs accounts for only about 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and that producing less meat and milk would lead to increased hunger in poorer countries.
The impact of U.S. cattle farming
U.S. cattle farming has made significant strides in environmental sustainability. The U.S. dairy industry's carbon footprint has shrunk by two-thirds since the 1950s. Today, there are about 9 million dairy cows in the U.S., down from 25 million in 1950, yet these fewer cows produce 60% more milk. This improvement is due to advancements in animal care, sustainability and technology.
Dr. Sara Place, an animal science professor at Colorado State University, emphasizes that cattle are natural "upcyclers." They can consume plant materials that are inedible to humans, such as grasses, corn stalks and ethanol byproducts. Without cattle, these materials would end up in landfills, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Place explains, "When you talk about nutrition and sustainability, cattle play a unique role as ruminants in the larger ag and food system."
Furthermore, beef is a nutrient-dense food, providing essential micronutrients like B12, iron, zinc and high-quality protein. The USDA's MyPlate dietary guidelines recommend lean beef as part of a heart-healthy diet.
Conclusion
The development of a "cow fart" vaccine is not only unnecessary but potentially harmful. It misallocates resources and diverts attention from more significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as the transportation sector and agricultural crop production. U.S. cattle farming has already made remarkable progress in reducing its environmental impact, and cattle play a crucial role in converting inedible plant materials into nutritious food. Instead of pursuing untested and potentially risky solutions, we should focus on proven methods of environmental stewardship and sustainable agriculture."