Save the Planet - Eat Skippy

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dodie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
677
Reaction score
0
Location
West Brisbane
http://feeds.newscientist.com/c/749...MP0FOTC0Erss0Gnsref0Fonline0Enews/story01.htm

How kangaroo burgers could save the planet

COWS, sheep and goats may seem like innocent victims of humanity's appetite for meat, but when it comes to climate change they have a dark secret. Forget cars, planes or even power stations, some of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters wander idly across rolling pastures chewing the cud, oblivious to the fact that their continuous belching (and to a lesser degree, farting) is warming the planet.
Take New Zealand, where 34.2 million sheep, 9.7 million cattle, 1.4 million deer and 155,000 goats emit 48 per cent of the country's greenhouse gases in the form of methane and nitrous oxide. Worldwide, livestock burps are responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions - more than produced from all forms of transport combined. Methane accounts for the bulk of ruminant green house gas emissions, one tonne of the gas has 25 times the global warming potential of the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide.
Livestock are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transport combined



Rising populations and incomes are expected to double the global demand for meat and milk from 229 to 465 million tonnes and 580 to 1043 million tonnes, respectively, by 2050. This will almost double the amount of greenhouse gases produced by livestock, dwarfing attempts to cut emissions elsewhere. Apart from all of us turning to a vegetarian diet, can anything be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock?
Several ideas have been proposed to raise animals that are kinder to the environment. In New Zealand, researchers are testing different diets, food additives, vaccines and drug therapies, as well as breeding low-methane animals. One Australian team has even suggested we wean ourselves from cattle and sheep altogether and eat kangaroo instead - they do not emit methane.
Concern for the climate isn't the only factor driving the research. Eight per cent of the energy expended by a ruminant's metabolism goes on producing methane. If livestock stopped making this gas, the energy saved could be diverted into making more meat.
So why do ruminants give off so much methane? It's all down to their stomachs. Sheep and cattle have a pregastric stomach, or rumen, where microbes digest plant matter and produce hydrogen, carbon dioxide and fatty acids. The fatty acids are a useful source of energy to aid animal growth, but the hydrogen and carbon dioxide are not. This is where microorganisms called methanogens come in: they have co-evolved with the animal to consume the carbon dioxide and hydrogen, producing methane. In return, the methanogens gain a home and a food source.
This cosy relationship is now in the cross hairs. In June, researchers from the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium in New Zealand - a group dedicated to reducing methane emissions from livestock - announced they had decoded the genetic sequence of Methanobrevibacter ruminantium, one of 20 or so species of methane-producing microbes in sheep and cow stomachs. They are hoping to discover a genetic hallmark for all methanogens, says Graeme Attwood, a microbiologist at the New Zealand based AgResearch and leader of the consortium's genome-sequencing project. Such methanogen-specific genes might provide a targeted way to knock out these microbes without harming the hundreds of other beneficial species in the rumen. The researchers think the hydrogen and carbon dioxide left behind that would have been digested by methanogens would then be consumed by other microbes, such as acetogens which dominate marsupial guts and are present in smaller numbers in ruminant guts, to produce the nutrient acetate, making the animals healthier too.
Going live

While analysing the genes, Attwood and his colleagues discovered the recipe for an enzyme that they believe breaks open chemical bonds unique to the methanogen cell wall. The enzyme originally belonged to a virus that infected the methanogen long ago, becoming incorporated into the microbes' genome as it evolved. Attwood's team has manufactured the enzyme and shown that it kills methanogens in vitro. "It's very exciting," says Attwood. Within the next six months, Attwood and his colleagues plan to test the enzyme in live animals.
The genome sequence is also being used to identify proteins that sit on the outer surface of M. ruminantium - the immune system can easily identify these proteins, making them ideal candidates for vaccines. Vaccinating animals against M. ruminantium has many benefits, not least that it is cheap to produce and could be given several times a year to livestock grazing in pastures.
This is not the first time an anti-methanogen vaccine has been tried. Four years ago, scientists in Australia developed an anti-methanogen vaccine that lowered methane production in sheep by almost 8 per cent compared with those that did not receive it. But the vaccine did not work in sheep from New Zealand, says Bryce Buddle, who leads the methanogen vaccine project at AgResearch. He says that this is probably because the methanogen strains in sheep from New Zealand and Australia are different.
Still, it was proof that a vaccine could work. Buddle is now testing a more sophisticated vaccine made from a mix of surface and intracellular M. ruminantium proteins. Though the mechanism of action is unclear, early lab tests have shown that the antibodies triggered in response to the vaccine can decrease methane production. He expects to test the vaccine in live animals within three years. Ultimately, he hopes that vaccinating cattle and sheep will decrease methane emissions by 20 to 30 per cent.
For animals that are kept mainly in sheds and not allowed to graze, methane emissions could be further reduced by changing their diet. Ermias Kebreab and his colleagues at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, have shown that grass-fed cattle typically produce 20 per cent more methane than those fed a mixture of grass and corn. Kebreab says that the addition of unsaturated fats like coconut and sunflower oil to their food could curb methane emissions by a further 20 per cent. The unsaturated oils serve as a sink for the hydrogen in the animal's gut - absorbing it before the methanogens can consume it - and produce hydrogenated fats which the animal can then store or digest for energy. Sunflower oil, for example, can lower methane by 21 per cent in cattle fed a high corn diet. The caveat to this approach, says Kebreab, is that the oils cannot exceed more than 5 per cent of the animal's total diet or it will stop eating the enriched food.
Legumes such as clover can also help to reduce methane levels in burps. The key seems to be the high level of tannins in the clover, says Jamie Newbold, an animal scientist at Aberystwyth University in the UK. Tannins, which give red wine its colour, are thought to slow the growth of methanogens, thus curbing methane production.
Legumes such as clover can help reduce methane levels in cow burps



Earlier this year, Newbold reported that a plant extract from garlic, called allicin, could dramatically lower methane output by between 25 and 50 per cent. While this would benefit the climate, nobody has yet tested whether it would affect the flavour of the milk and meat from these animals.
Athol Klieve, a microbiologist at the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries in Brisbane, Australia, thinks it might be possible to cut cows and sheep methane emissions completely. He has just completed a census of microbes inhabiting the gut of the eastern grey and red kangaroos and has identified three distinct species of acetogens in the forestomach of kangaroos. Acetogens are also present in cattle and sheep, so he is now exploring whether the acetogens in ruminants can out-compete the methanogens and become the dominant species in the gut, as they are in the kangaroo.
All of these approaches will take a long time to develop, though, and when it comes to climate change, time is not on our side. "If livestock populations rise as projected then high-tech solutions [such as vaccines and feed additives] are just fiddling around at the edges," says Peter Smith, who studies how climate change impacts soil and agriculture at University of Aberdeen, UK. "If people ate less meat, there would be fewer animals, and less methane would be emitted." Tom Wirth, at the US Environmental Protection Agency, thinks chemicals added to the feed could cause problems with the animal's digestion, and he wonders whether consumers would want to eat an animal that had been injected with a methanogen vaccine.
There is a simpler alternative. Two Australian biologists say there is a sure-fire way to reduce methane emissions without resorting to complex biotechnology: cut the number of cattle and sheep being reared and meet the demand for meat with marsupials. Kangaroos produce barely any methane (see diagram) as their dominant gut flora are acetogens, not methanogens. These convert the hydrogen into acetate, a fatty acid that can also be used by cattle as an energy source. George Wilson and Melanie Edwards, based at Australian Wildlife Services in Canberra, have calculated that replacing a third of Australia's sheep and cattle with kangaroos would slash cattle emissions and reduce the nation's entire greenhouse gas output by 3 per cent. "It's not a completely wacky idea," says Wilson. "All [Australian] supermarkets already carry kangaroo meat on the shelf. It is a AU$250 million industry." Kangaroo burger anyone?
 
Another good reason to eat roo. Hopefully with more stuff like this in the media more ppl will eat roos and they will be seen as more of a resource than a pest.
 
how many kangaroo's are in Australia??

34.2million sheep in new zealand LOL..

-EDIT

In fact the current estimated population of 58.6 million is the highest ever and means there are more than twice as many kangaroos in Australia as there are cattle! This in spite of the rising commercial harvest, clearly making a mockery of the Viva claim, "there are worrying signs of populations falling today"
 
roo meat absolutely stinks! its grose enough feeding it to my pets
 
I have eaten roo meat in the past at a chinese banquet but I actually thought it was mongolian lamb...lol

Tasted pretty good but not sure if I could bring myself to buy it and cook it.
 
If kangaroos were farmed and bred like sheep i would support this.

However they are not.

Nearly all the meat you see for sale in shops is wild killed kangaroos.
 
If we are serious about protecting our native wildlife and the government really care about our wildlife we will stop the mass slaughter of native wild animals in this country.
 
But there are more than enough to to able to harvest and support the wild populations, the trouble with 'farming' roos is the cost. The fences needed would have a hefty price tag.

I've had roo meat on a few occasions, usually cooked by a friend, I like it. If cooked 'properly' it's beautiful.
 
It's another absolutely crap stat...

48% of NZ's greenhouse gases may in fact come from livestock - but the country is run 75% on hydro electricity, has a population of around 5 million - no wonder the greenhouse gases are so high from livestock.

But if you look at Australia or America or Europe even - the greenhouse gases by the tonne do not come just from livestock! They're mostly from fossil fuel burning.

They've used this statistic because it was easier to see.

"According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation."

So - we cut down that stat, we still want to eat sheep and cattle so maybe we can lower it by about 2% max.

Now if we cut out coal fired power plants and other things like that, then we're talking huge reductions.

"Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions account for 98 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions " (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html)

So please don't tell me that the world will be a better place if we all ate roo...
 
I want to add some other stats as well:

When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

* water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Without water vapour in our upper atmosphere the overall earth temperature would be around -15'C average! Brrrrrrr
 
I have tried roo as a burger & it has a much gamier flavour. I can't say that I don't like it though ( better than emu..eeew). One question though. Couldn't you use deer fencing for roos? Surely that would be the same specs? Height wise that & all?
By making an animal commercially worthwhile it also conserves it. Just look at crocs! Weren't they on the endangered list until someone started making $$$ from them? And a humane cull is so much better than starvation. There was a huge outcry when brumby numbers got out of hand & a cull was ordered. I remember the horse world went nuts but the horses were starving to death! Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
 
I have tried roo as a burger & it has a much gamier flavour. I can't say that I don't like it though ( better than emu..eeew). One question though. Couldn't you use deer fencing for roos? Surely that would be the same specs? Height wise that & all?
By making an animal commercially worthwhile it also conserves it. Just look at crocs! Weren't they on the endangered list until someone started making $$$ from them? And a humane cull is so much better than starvation. There was a huge outcry when brumby numbers got out of hand & a cull was ordered. I remember the horse world went nuts but the horses were starving to death! Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

Some farmers out this way are putting up high fences to keep the kangaroos out, as they eat so much feed (It triples the cost of a fence however), plus the 10% anual cull is not enough to make a significant difference in roo numbers.
Farming of kangaroos is currently not economically viable. The market value for roo compared to sheep or cattle is significantly reduced. Yet the costs to produce would be near if not higher.

If kangaroos were farmed and bred like sheep i would support this.

However they are not.

Nearly all the meat you see for sale in shops is wild killed kangaroos.

I do not understand your ethics?
When comparing an animal that has true freedom, in a mob, in the wild, and organic, is shot humanely through the brain.
Compared to an animal that is fed chemicals, not allowed freedom, its rear skinned alive, tail cut off, holes cut into its ears, sheared each year with sometimes numerous cuts and shunted off to a abatour that stinks of death and the animal can sense death all around it.....

Which animal has a better life? Yet you want to eat the later as of ethical reasons....? Mmmmmmmmmm.........I do not understand your ethics.

If we are serious about protecting our native wildlife and the government really care about our wildlife we will stop the mass slaughter of native wild animals in this country.

Can you please explain Mass Slaughter for me and which animals you mean?
You cannot mean Kangaroos which this topic is 'about', as here in Queensland, the annual cull of kangaroos is capped at 10% of the wild Kangaroo population...which is not mass. And slaughter? They are shot through the brain...not slaughtered.....
 
If kangaroos were farmed and bred like sheep i would support this.

However they are not.

Nearly all the meat you see for sale in shops is wild killed kangaroos.

Like Earthling i find this kind of thinking illogical, could you explain why it is better to farm animals than to harvest wild animals sustainably?
 
I do not understand your ethics?
When comparing an animal that has true freedom, in a mob, in the wild, and organic, is shot humanely through the brain.
Compared to an animal that is fed chemicals, not allowed freedom, its rear skinned alive, tail cut off, holes cut into its ears, sheared each year with sometimes numerous cuts and shunted off to a abatour that stinks of death and the animal can sense death all around it.....

Which animal has a better life? Yet you want to eat the later as of ethical reasons....? Mmmmmmmmmm.........I do not understand your ethics.

Totally agree with this.

Also Kangaroo populations today certainly exist in unnatural numbers. These animals are not being culled for the sake of it but because the presence of farms and artificial dams is providing unnatural resources for population growth. With this in mind you could almost argue that kangaroos ARE farmed, wild populations grow due to the natural environment, many populations of roos however have grown because of farm resources.
 
Some farmers out this way are putting up high fences to keep the kangaroos out, as they eat so much feed (It triples the cost of a fence however), plus the 10% anual cull is not enough to make a significant difference in roo numbers.
Farming of kangaroos is currently not economically viable. The market value for roo compared to sheep or cattle is significantly reduced. Yet the costs to produce would be near if not higher.



I do not understand your ethics?
When comparing an animal that has true freedom, in a mob, in the wild, and organic, is shot humanely through the brain.
Compared to an animal that is fed chemicals, not allowed freedom, its rear skinned alive, tail cut off, holes cut into its ears, sheared each year with sometimes numerous cuts and shunted off to a abatour that stinks of death and the animal can sense death all around it.....

Which animal has a better life? Yet you want to eat the later as of ethical reasons....? Mmmmmmmmmm.........I do not understand your ethics.



Can you please explain Mass Slaughter for me and which animals you mean?
You cannot mean Kangaroos which this topic is 'about', as here in Queensland, the annual cull of kangaroos is capped at 10% of the wild Kangaroo population...which is not mass. And slaughter? They are shot through the brain...not slaughtered.....

If the fences are already there , then cost of fencing shouldn't be a problem. And I thought the price for roo is higher than beef/lamb ( I will be taking a look when next at the shops. Maybe we should have a roo drive, like the wool industry did for wool not long ago, remember the sock ads? ) And I agree with you 100% re the "ethics". Having farmed both beef & sheep, I know what dreadful practices some farmers subject their stock to. Dehorning is another you didn't mention. That is BARBARIC!! As is mulesing, castration ( often done on 6 month old bull calves, with a knife & NO anaesthetic!) to name but a few. The wild roos know none of that, much more ethical imo!
 
I done believe any native animal should be commercially harvested from the wild for any reason.

This includes:

Ducks
Kangaroos
Emus
Crocs

If someone wants to make a buisness out kangaroos then they should farm them. This i have no problem with.
 
Kangaroos cannot be farmed. If you've ever seen a roo with a broken leg... well... thats what happens if you try to herd them into fences and yards.


Ok, I've not read the the whole thread. I assume it's the normal anti-roo harvesting diatribe and the associated retort by those who have a bit of knowledge on the subject. If it hasn't been pointed out already:
The current system is far from perfect, but results in alot of rural employment and happier farmers. Remember, for most part these roos would be shot anyway and left to rot.

Surely there is a bit about puch young and young at foot joeys being orphaned in the aforementioned diatribe. For most part roo shooters won't go for female roos. Consider that your bullet (about 50c to $1) can kill at 50kg male instead of a 25kg female. Female eastern and western grey don't get much above 30kgs, female reds about 35-40kgs. Male greys get to about 75kgs+ and the Tibooburra male reds to 110kgs. You get paid by weight and your truck can only hold x number of carcases. Also the females will repopulate what you're taking. Not profitable to shoot females.

Roo harvesting should be encouraged. If roo harvesting is more viable then less sheep and cattle need to be stocked, and less top soil will be lost to NZ every time we get a decent westernly wind.


Just my 2c.

-H
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top