[Report file] Why we are interested in cow burps

As the number of corona patients decreased, the social distancing measures were lifted.

At this point in time when the war against Corona is gradually coming to an end, let's look again at the message that Corona left on climate change.

In 2020, the world went into an unusual shutdown due to the corona virus.

Factories stopped production and the smoke from the chimneys disappeared.

As much as the soot disappeared, greenhouse gas emissions also decreased, and in the first half of 2020, emissions decreased by 8% compared to 2019.

This was the largest decline since World War II.

Enlarging an image

However, despite this decrease, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

This is because carbon dioxide has a lifespan of hundreds of years in the atmosphere, so even if emissions have decreased, it is still more than the amount that is lost to the atmosphere.

The shutdown during the corona period was neither our will nor our intention, but even in this unprecedented situation, the concentration of greenhouse gases has risen.

The actual greenhouse gas concentration continues to rise and is hitting new highs every day.

Although it is a provisional estimate, the April observation value of the Anmyeondo Climate Change Observatory, Korea's representative observatory, was 430.3ppm, the highest ever.

At the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which is the world's representative value, for the first time this year, the observed value exceeded 420 ppm in April.

The corona shutdown period was a kind of trailer that showed how much effort is needed to reduce the greenhouse gas concentration, which rises year by year.

Livestock Industry and Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gases are emitted in many areas of our lives.

It is largely divided into energy and industrial processes, agricultural and livestock industries and waste treatment.

Energy and industrial processes account for the largest portion.

Based on 2019 emissions, energy accounted for 87% of the total, followed by industrial processes with 7%.

The livestock industry accounts for 3% of the total, but the livestock industry is only 1.5% of the total.

However, it cannot be overlooked.

This is because it has increased by more than 70% compared to 1990, and as meat consumption is increasing, it is clear that greenhouse gas emissions will increase.

Also, in countries where livestock industry is active, such as Australia and the United States, the livestock industry accounts for as high as 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.

This is why it is necessary to think about greenhouse gases emitted from the livestock industry.

Enlarging an image

Most of the greenhouse gases emitted by livestock farms are generated when ruminants such as cattle and sheep chew the cud.

Due to the nature of ruminants, they often burp and fart, which generates methane, a greenhouse gas.

Methane is a gas that has a greenhouse effect up to 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide. Raising four cows emits greenhouse gas from one car.

To deal with this situation, each country, including Korea, has come up with a number of countermeasures.

response?

first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without reducing meat consumption.

If possible, this is the best way for now.

This is because it does not harm the tastes of consumers who want to consume meat, and it does not harm people who are engaged in the livestock industry.

Current technologies are a way to reduce methane gas from ruminants.

There are several approaches, including collecting methane gas from ruminants and converting it into other gases with less greenhouse effect.

A British company has developed a technology that converts the methane gas produced by putting a mask on cows in this way.

Of course, the gas to be converted is carbon dioxide, which has a much longer lifespan than methane, and whether it is environmentally friendly even considering the carbon cost of making masks remains a question mark.

Another way is to manipulate the feed of ruminants.

If you make a feed that is favorable for digestion and growth, you can shorten the time of shipment and reduce the amount of methane generated.

Researchers in the United States announced that the methane reduction effect of up to 80% or more was achieved through the feed mixed with seaweed.

In Korea, the National Institute of Livestock Science, Rural Development Administration, is conducting a similar study.

Research is still in progress in the laboratory stage, and it is known that a reduction effect of about 40% has been achieved.

“For the economic feasibility of future feed supply, materials commonly found in Korea such as seaweed or seaweed also tried to reduce methane. We are going to check the ratio and conduct a livestock feeding test later." (Lee Yoo-kyung, Dr. Lee, National Institute of Livestock Science

On the other hand, there are voices calling for reducing meat consumption.

Of course, not all of these voices are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions.

This is because it includes all people who are vegetarians according to their personal values.

The argument for reducing meat consumption is because they think that reducing meat consumption can naturally reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock.

In fact, as a result of a recent simulation by an overseas research team, it was analyzed that by 2050, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming could be reduced by 50% by replacing only 20% of meat with substitute meat such as microbial protein.

Enlarging an image

(Red is when no effort is made, and blue is when 20% of meat is replaced with substitute meat)

However, even this is still not the answer.

Experts agree with the broad theory, but say that a more in-depth analysis is needed on the process of replacing meat and the carbon cost of making meat substitutes.

In the livestock industry, which has been relatively researched, the carbon cost of all processes of raising ruminants is calculated, but substitute meat is not.

Currently, the carbon cost of substitute meat is calculated only for the cost of making substitute meat in a factory.

After all, we do not yet know the exact answer to this field.

It is not a step where you can force yourself to say that a certain direction is right.

And even so, it is an area that clearly requires the social consensus of many members.

It is certainly true that the livestock industry accounts for less than 10% of the total greenhouse gas emissions.

However, considering the growing meat consumption and the situation of all those involved in the industry in a complicated way, it is impossible to sit still.

This is why we should strive to find the optimal direction we can afford while striving with the same goal of reducing greenhouse gas whether it is low-methane feed or alternative meat.

Florian Humpenöder et al., "Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein", nature (2022) 605, 90-96, doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04629-w

Zhu Liu et al., “Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic”, nature communication (2020) 11, 5172, doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7

National Institute of Meteorological Sciences Anmyeondo Climate Change Observatory Greenhouse Gas Data