This was the main reason that I was a vegetarian for more than 14 years.

I disagree with their assessment cows are big source for green house gasses.

Yet I agree there are more cattle than ever before, but not as many as the wild herding animals before man engulfed the world. Nature had millions of more gas producing herbivores than there are cattle today. We just killed them all off before we moved in the cattle so as to reduce feeding competition.

Some of you might remember how hunters killed millions of buffaloes in the US Plains because they were eating the grass herders wanted for their cattle, and that action removed the Indians (another story all-together). There were other large herds of animals that are now coming back, like White Tail Deer (in the millions now, up from 1500 in the 60's- State of MO stats). Don't forget there are lots of humans, like 6.2 billion now? We produce gas too.

Oh and being a vegetarian doesn't help either, cause that tofu or other protein enriched meal you eat will have soy, which causes people to fart more.

So, you want to stop green house gasses? Don't eat anything. Then you'll die.

Oh, wait, that won't help, cause if you're cremated, that will increase carbon emissions and even the very act your body decaying will produce gasses... Catch 22.

I agree with you “Makatsuta” but also there are a few more problems with this ad cattle eructate or burp the excess gas caused by microbial fermentation Though it is true cattle produce methane gas (don’t we all!) and NO2 emissions their contribution to total greenhouse gas emissions is actually counter balanced by the sequestration of Carbon in soil aggregates, plant matter and within the animals themselves. In other words, proper grazing on native pastures (such as almost any beef production in North America) produces a Net Sink in Carbon emissions! Therefore one method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to continue with beef production (this includes ensuring there is a decent market in which to sell said beef) allowing for carbon sequestration in organic matter and in the cattle themselves, instead of attempting to, say… grow crops for those not eating meat on land, which will not efficiently produce crops worthy of human consumption, and would rapidly allow only for more carbon to be released into the atmosphere, do to the break up of aggregates in the soil from plowing (which has to be done to plant a crop), Some may argue that without the cattle, there would be more grain available for people. Wrong as livestock production does not use crops which are fit for human consumption (why? Because crops used as human food can be sold for much higher prices than feed grain!). So basically without a market for cattle production, more land will have to be plowed and seeded to support the new demand for non-meat products, yet the land used for growing these crops will produce poor quality crops, which cannot be used for human consumption and with no livestock operations there will be no market for them. The loss of livestock operations would most likely only lead to waste, waste of land and resources. In closing though I completely agree that cattle contribute greenhouse gas emissions, it would be more detrimental to the earth to loose the pros of livestock production.