Why don't I care? An inexpensive possible solution has been available since the late 1980's. Iron fertilization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
Short version: iron is not very soluble in ocean water and is commonly a deficient nutrient there. Adding iron causes microscopic plants to multiply. The plants absorb carbon and a significant number sink, sequestering the carbon on the ocean floor. Nor is this just theory. Every part has been observed as natural processes or as experimental results. The overall method has been observed both ways. And this method would be incredibly cheap.
If Man Made Global Warming was worth taking seriously, over the time involved every possible question about any such possible solution would have long since been answered. Either the solution would be currently implemented or there would be definitive proof it can't work that Man Made Global Warming supporters could point to. Clearly neither its supporters nor those in power take the theory of Man Made Global Warming seriously so why should anyone else?
I think they are very similar. Some would say that bison don't generate quite as much CO2 but I don't accept that is damaging to the environment. I grew up in South Dakota near very healthy bison populations in Wind Cave National Park and Custer State Park. Bison are able to cope better in the cold but other than that, there isn't a whole lot of difference.
FYI I think the proper English is "Are Bison..." unless you use it like Rich did as a singular.
The FAO has a summary on the effect of livestock on the environment. The link below is just a quick summary. It doesn't matter the animal, cattle, bison, poultry, all cause damage to the environment with production of GHG, overconsumption of fresh water, and runoff from animal waste pits often cause algae blooms which destroy aquatic environments. There is also an in-depth wiki page on The Environmental Impact of meat production.
On a more culinary note: As long as you know the practices of the farm you purchase your meat from it doesn't matter which animal it is, so eat whichever you enjoy more. Ask your local butcher about the meat. They often have a lot of knowledge about the farms they get their product from. Don't assume your butcher is more expensive, I always find a better deal on meats there (which are fresher and tastier) than I find at the grocery store deli.
Animals that are allowed to roam free and thus move around a lot and limit the damage to any one area are better for the environment. So the problem isn't cattle or bison, but rather fenced into a small area, or permitted to roam around a large area that makes the difference.
Earth's environment did'nt have anything to do with Global Warming. Ex-Pres. Bush refused to liston to the 43,000 scientists he hired to find Global Warming and a solution and when they told Bush Global Warming did'nt have anything to do with MAN. Bush called a Whitehouse Summit meeting, but I used my Military code and let the rest of the leaders know the real truth that Earth's environment has nothing to do with Global Warming/ even my Global Teams proved Global Warming was located under another no-fly zone in another hostile Nation and my solution Triple Output given to another Nation for their purpose also turned off Global Warming/ confirmed by other Nations. Mike
It depends how the cattle are raised. A free range cow eating only grass is equal to a buffalo in terms of damage to the environment. Both are ruminants which produce large amounts of methane. The problem with beef cattle comes when they are raised in a large confinement unit. They eat lots of corn, which requires fuel to grow. Their waste collects in large lagoons which produce additional methane.
In addition, feedlot beef are fed hormones and antibiotics which find their way into the environment. Besides, these animals are under a lot of stress and that can't be good for their meat. Look around. Find somebody who raises free range beef- doesn't have to be certified organic or grass fed.
Bovinae are the family that all the cows and buffalo and bison come from and all when farmed responsibly, any of those animals can be beneficial to their environment. It is the industrial process and sheer volume that turns our cattle industry into an environmental risk.
On an individual basis, one bison emits about as much methane as a same-sized head of cattle. Both are ruminants, and therefore both produce methane through enteric fermentation as they digest food.
Because of the vastly different numbers currently, bison contribute a small fraction of the methane produced by cattle. Beef cattle produce about 100 tons of CO2 equivalent, dairy cattle produce about 35 tons, and bison about 1/3 ton. Domestic cattle in the U.S. produce roughly 450 times the amount of methane that Bison do.
Today, domesticated cattle produce about 150% of the methane produced by bison who lived in North America before European people. That is, human activity has increased methane produced by bovines by about +50% +/- changes in populations of deer, elk and other bovines.
It's not the animal, it's how they are used, done right with proper grazing rotations beef can be very good for the environment, they fertilize the land and pack in CO2 in the ground which is better for our air and even better for vegetation which reverses desertification, it's when they graze in one spot for too long that they become destructive.
Bison like to do their own grazing and only supplement their diet with hay in the snow seasons. They will move snow to get fresher grasses.
Cow are lazy graziers so they require more hay and easier land to graze on.
Do you want to calculate that difference on growing hay fields?
Bison is by far more healthy meat nutritionally.
Neither are bad for the environment. Both get their co2 from natural sources, they don't add to the carbon totals by tapping into sequestered carbon. Both are consumed by their host so carbon is not released into the atmosphere.
How does a cow hurt the environment? I know they both make great hamburgers.
Both very bad, eat them all.
