Why cows are back in my good books

I don’t know about you but I’ve been avidly following the debate sparked by Joanna Lumley’s comment article which pointed out the significant role that meat and dairy consumption has on climate change - yes, yes, it's the farting cows, we all know that now.
At least we think we do. A series of letters, mostly from farmers, flooded in to The Times, you’ll find them here, reminding readers that the relationship between cows and the environment is more complex than we realize.
This made me wonder if I was a little hasty in my previous proclamation that true eco-worriers shouldn't eat meat and dairy. There are good reasons to eat less of it, as listed here by No Impact Man - my new favourite blog. But the more I find out about the symbiotic relationship between livestock and land, the less I believe that Joanna Lumley and her ilk grasp the full story. By converting grass to fertilizer, cows not only reduce the need to manufacture artificial fertilizer, they also lock up carbon that would otherwise be released by rotting plants. On top of all this, farms are already looking into ways of turning the methane cows create into fuel – it’s happening here. 
When I visited an organic dairy farm in Pembrokeshire this summer, the words of the farmer, David Lort-Phillips stayed with me (see him and his family clan above). He couldn’t believe that people were blaming cows for climate change.
“Animals perform a vital function in the countryside,” David told me. “By grazing and producing manure that in turn improves soil structure and quality, they help us to manage the land and produce healthy cereal crops.”
I am inclined to agree. Let me know what you think.

Comments

[Tracy Stokes]

From what I've read I don't believe that cows are being blamed for climate change. It's the factory farming of cows that's causing the problems. And the sheer quantity of meat being produced for a population who doesn't need so much of it.

[Ted Baines]

If we all drive at less than 55 mph, the mpg rises by 33% or in other words we burn 33% less gasoline(petrol). Add to that a day of car pooling and one day of telecommuting. Another 20% each since 1/5 days = 20%. Total 73% reduction in CO2 emission due to burning gas while commuting.

[Alex Mackay]

Do these statistics include the carbon cost of moving the meat to market? After all, a bit of New Zealand lamb is going to have a heavier carbon footprint than same amount of lamb from your local farmer.

[Jordan]

I hardly think those are reasons to reaccept meat. If you were going to cut meat out for ethical reasons, consider that environmental reasons aren't the only ones. There's also the fact that it could additional motivate you to cease your monetary support of the needless murder of millions of animals to satisfy the greed of a naton afflicted by consumerism. And while cows may play a vital role in the countryside, they certainly don't play a cital role in the rainforest, where vast areas are burnt for use as grazing land by equally vast cattle herds - this hardly does anything good for the environment, either. It's time to accept that to be ethical and green, you need to stop advocating animal abuse and the burning of the rainforest - by not buying meat.

[Brien Comerford]

The cruel and inhumane beef, pork, poulty, lamb and fishing industries cause more pollution and global warming than all the emissions released by planes, trains and automobiles. Insead of feeding tons of grains and soy to mistreated food animals, we should use those foods to feed the poor. Food animal liberation can end human starvation.

[Charley]

In most farming systems, manure is not used as "natural fertiliser" - it is collected in slurry pits which causes water and land pollution when run-off occurs. As for a "symbiotic relationship between livestock and land" - most food animals, in particular the 97% of poultry that are factory-farmed in this country, rarely or never get to see the light of day until they are taken for slaughter. Yes, a few animals included in a mixed farming system may be beneficial, but the current mass-production of factory farmed animals necessary to meet consumer demand for animal products - and the overuse of water, crops and land, deforestation and greenhouse emissions that come with it - certainly is not.

[bananaking]

Your comments are true, cows should not be blamed for the global "issues" at hand.

But, at the same time, we shouldn't be eating them, we should let all animals live, freely and without bars and without being used for profit or gain (financial or of the taste-buds) - - - just like we wouldn't want anyone to use us in a similar way (e.g. the reason for "fair-trade").