COW GAS! New Solutions for Earth's Oldest Line of Bacteria

Im a BM wrote:
Cattle Feed Calories and Organic Carbon WASTED as Methane Emissions

The methane that cows belch contains calories and organic carbon derived from their feed. Wasted, rather than used to help the cows produce beef or milk.

The initial motivation for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas emissions may have been because they are about one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL fringe benefit of increased production of beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If we just want to transform livestock feed into methane, bacteria can do it MUCH more efficiently than cattle. And we could capture that methane, rather than have it all belched out into the atmosphere.

We want the cattle to transform that feed into beef or milk, not methane.

If the hydrogen generated during fermentation in cow guts is NOT being transformed into methane to be lost, it could instead be transformed into greater microbial biomass. That greater microbial biomass could then be transformed into greater production of beef and milk.

FATTER COWS from the same amount of feed, with NO COW GAS EMISSIONS



Sounds like a pipe dream or science fiction?

Here's an example of how it might work.

We could add ferric iron, iron(III), Fe+ to the cattle feed.

We could selectively breed an iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria to live inside cow guts.

We put those bacteria into the feed, along with the ferric iron they will need as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen produced during a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy.

The iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could then compete with the methanogenic archaebacteria already present in cow guts.

The iron reducers would get a lot more bang for the buck than the methanogens, for the same amount of hydrogen. They could easily out compete them, able to grow much more than the methanogens, from the same amount of hydrogen available.

This means the cows would stop belching methane.

This also means the cows would get FATTER from the same amount of feed.

All those calories of chemical energy in the methane belches can instead be calories to fatten up the cattle.

Iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can produce MUCH MORE biomass than methanogens. Eventually that bacterial biomass gets digested by the cow.

There is a whole lot more chemical energy lost from the cow in a methane belches than there would be in ferrous iron rich cow manure.

Some energy is acquired by bacteria that oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, but that is very little compared to what a bacteria gets as a methane oxidizer.

So, if we provide cattle with a better terminal electron acceptor than carbon dioxide in their guts, and a bacteria that can use it to oxidize hydrogen, they can out compete methanogens because they grow so much more with the same resource.

And the cows would get more calories from the food they eat, producing more beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If this experiment were to be conducted, it is predictable that some or most cows could be adversely impacted by too much ferrous iron in the guts.

On the other hand, it is possible that some breeds of cattle are better able than others to cope with excessive bioavailable iron in their guts.

And ferric iron is offered as just ONE potential candidate for the job to cut methane emissions so we can get more bang for the buck on our cattle feed.

---------------

Methanogenesis = Minimally Exothermic Oxidation of Hydrogen

"Cow gas" emissions of methane (CH4) are belched out by cattle as a consequence of methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria under extreme low oxygen conditions, during a microbial feeding frenzy.

During methanogenesis, hydrogen is oxidized using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor.

H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O + small exothermic energy yield

Much more energy is released from hydrogen oxidation using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor, as during hydrogen combustion.

H2 + O2 = H2O + large exothermic energy yield

During methanogenesis, hydrogen gets oxidized with relatively small energy release. There is still a lot of chemical energy left behind to be released upon further oxidation. Such as during methane combustion.

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O + large exothermic energy yield

The hydrogen is fully oxidized, as H2O. The only further oxidation that might occur is to oxidize the OXYGEN atom in the water molecule, as during photosynthesis. It takes the input of solar energy to oxidize oxygen atoms in water molecules, tearing them apart to release oxygen gas, O2.

Cow belches of methane occur because carbon dioxide is the best terminal electron acceptor available to methanogenic archaea bacteria, competing in a feeding frenzy to exploit the hydrogen gas being generated during low oxygen fermentation in cow guts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This thread was inspired by the "Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" article, from the Washington Post (August 25, 2024) about how to reduce methane emissions from cattle belches.

It also gets into more details about the biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion.

This post gets further into it.

GOOGLE says:

"Yes, a 'terminal electron acceptor' refers to the final molecule in an electron transport chain that receives electrons at the end of the chain."

"Oxidants" are terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions.

Compared to carbon dioxide, oxygen is an STRONG terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation.

Methanogenesis is described as "slightly exothermic" because the energy yield using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation is relatively small.

MUCH MUCH more metabolic energy could be acquired by oxidizing the same amount of hydrogen using OXYGEN as terminal electron acceptor.

If there were oxygen available in the part of the cow guts where the methanogenic archaea bacteria live, the energy yield using the better terminal electron acceptor is so much greater that methanogens would be completely outcompeted by aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Note: Among the different "Kingdoms" of living organisms ("Animal Kingdom", "Plant Kingdom", etc.) there are two distinct "domains" within the Kingdom of bacteria.

Eubacteria = domain of all bacteria species except archaebacteria

archaebacteria = very oldest line of the simplest single celled organisms to establish ecosystems on Earth. It includes anoxygenic photosynthetic archaebacteria as well as many chemoautotrophic (lithotrophic, etc.) species. The bacteria in cow guts that carry out methanogenesis are archaebacteria.

If there were nitrate ion in the cow guts, and there very rarely is, it could be used instead of oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor by bacteria that
reduce nitrate in order to oxidize hydrogen.

This would give a relatively large energy yield, but not nearly as large as achieved using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

11/2 H2 + 2NO3- = 10H2O + OH- + N2

4H2 + NO3- = 2H2O + OH- + NH3

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can generate either nitrogen gas, N2, or ammonia, NH2 as the reduced nitrogen product. Note that it is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction as well, generating a hydroxide, OH- ion.

I'm not suggesting that we introduce cow guts to the same bacteria used in wastewater treatment and add nitrate to their feed. It might very well consume all the hydrogen before methanogens can turn it into methane. But nitrate reduction in guts can generate dangerous by products, even causing death such as "blue baby syndrome" (methemoglobinemia).

Hydrogen oxidizing, nitrate reducing bacteria are used as an example of how a competing bacteria could consume hydrogen in cow guts before the methanogenic archaea bacteria can turn it into methane. Putting enough nitrate into cattle feed to consume enough hydrogen to mitigate cow gas emissions would likely produce harmful amounts of hemoglobin-harmful compounds of nitrogen and oxygen.

If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or ferric iron(III), Fe3+ ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Ferric iron(III), Fe3+, gets reduced to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+. Manganese(IV), Mn4+, gets reduced to manganese(II), Mn2+. Much less energy yielded than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen!

Adding oxidized manganese(IV) or ferric iron(III) to cattle feed, and putting hydrogen oxidizing, manganese or iron reducing bacteria in their guts might work. The energy yield is so much higher than (slightly exothermic) methanogenesis, they could easily out compete the methanogens for available hydrogen.

If there were sulfate ions, SO4(2-) in the cow guts, sulfate reducing bacteria (yes, sulfate CAN be reduced) could use it as terminal electron acceptor for a relatively small energy yield from hydrogen oxidation.

5/2 H2 + SO4(2-) = 2H2O + 2OH- + H2S
This generates hydrogen sulfide, and is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction, generating 2 hydroxide, OH- ions.

The energy yield for bacteria using sulfate as terminal electron acceptor for oxidation of hydrogen is small. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But the exothermic yield of sulfate reduction is still LARGE compared to methanogenesis using carbon dioxide, the weakest terminal electron acceptor anyone can use.

In theory, we could put hydrogen oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria in cow guts and add a lot of sulfate ion to their feed. They could outcompete the methanogens and reduce methane emissions. But then the cow belches would smell like egg farts. Belching hydrogen sulfide near a spark could also turn a cow into a fire breathing dragon. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to cattle, so sulfate reducers may not be the best candidates to reduce cow gas emissions.

And for the most fun, let's introduce two different species of phosphorus reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate, PO4(3-) ion to the feed. The first bacteria reduces phosphorus(V) phosphate, PO4(3-) to phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-). The second bacteria reduces phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-) to phosphine, H3P.

Now the cows will belch phosphine, H3P. Now your cow becomes a fire breathing dragon WITHOUT need for a nearby spark. Phosphine ignites spontaneously upon contact with 21% O2 in the atmosphere.

Methanogenesis may only be "slightly exothermic", but it releases enough energy to supply methanogenic archaea bacteria with ALL their metabolic energy needs.

But the weakness of their terminal electron acceptor is also their weakness in competition with ANYONE ELSE who can use a better terminal electron acceptor, and such terminal electron acceptor is present and available for use to oxidize hydrogen.

Multiple approaches show great promise to have our beef and milk without cow gas emissions. Or at least with a whole lot LESS of them.

One approach is to optimize the chemical composition of the cattle feed for the diet that produces the fewest methane belches. Such as inclusion of some vegetation rich in tannins (polyphenols).

Another approach highlighted in recent news reports include potential genetic engineering of bacteria already found in cow guts to minimize methanogenesis.

And here, the basic biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion is discussed to include selective breeding of anaerobic bacteria that could out compete methanogenic archaea bacteria in cow guts for available hydrogen, given an appropriate available terminal electron acceptor.

The list of minerals that bacteria can use as terminal electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions is long and ancient. In many cases this kind of anaerobic respiration is still performed by archaea bacteria evolved long before any free oxygen was present in the air or water.

So far, "oxidant" terminal electron acceptors mentioned have been oxygen, [b]carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and phosphite. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy.

The list goes on.

Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Selenate, arsenate, borate, molybdate, vanadate, cobaltate... and that is only a partial list of anions that can be used as terminal electron acceptors for oxidation reactions carried out by bacteria.

In every case, an appropriate hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could be coupled to the terminal electron acceptor added to the cattle feed.

Potential disadvantages of one versus the other include the risk of acting as oxidants before arriving to where the methanogens live in cow guts, altering redox conditions, or altering pH conditions in a manner harmful to proper digestion.

In almost all cases of the terminal electron acceptors listed, the (reduced) chemical products can be toxic at high enough concentration.

If only a small amount is required to effectively prevent methanogenic archaea bacteria from causing significant methane emissions, the hydrogen sulfide, nitrite, ferrous iron(II), manganese(II), etc, might be produced at concentrations harmless to the cattle.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Cattle Feed Calories and Organic Carbon WASTED as Methane Emissions

The methane that cows belch contains calories and organic carbon derived from their feed. Wasted, rather than used to help the cows produce beef or milk.

The initial motivation for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas emissions may have been because they are about one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL fringe benefit of increased production of beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If we just want to transform livestock feed into methane, bacteria can do it MUCH more efficiently than cattle. And we could capture that methane, rather than have it all belched out into the atmosphere.

We want the cattle to transform that feed into beef or milk, not methane.

If the hydrogen generated during fermentation in cow guts is NOT being transformed into methane to be lost, it could instead be transformed into greater microbial biomass. That greater microbial biomass could then be transformed into greater production of beef and milk.

FATTER COWS from the same amount of feed, with NO COW GAS EMISSIONS



Sounds like a pipe dream or science fiction?

Here's an example of how it might work.

We could add ferric iron, iron(III), Fe+ to the cattle feed.

We could selectively breed an iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria to live inside cow guts.

We put those bacteria into the feed, along with the ferric iron they will need as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen produced during a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy.

The iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could then compete with the methanogenic archaebacteria already present in cow guts.

The iron reducers would get a lot more bang for the buck than the methanogens, for the same amount of hydrogen. They could easily out compete them, able to grow much more than the methanogens, from the same amount of hydrogen available.

This means the cows would stop belching methane.

This also means the cows would get FATTER from the same amount of feed.

All those calories of chemical energy in the methane belches can instead be calories to fatten up the cattle.

Iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can produce MUCH MORE biomass than methanogens. Eventually that bacterial biomass gets digested by the cow.

There is a whole lot more chemical energy lost from the cow in a methane belches than there would be in ferrous iron rich cow manure.

Some energy is acquired by bacteria that oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, but that is very little compared to what a bacteria gets as a methane oxidizer.

So, if we provide cattle with a better terminal electron acceptor than carbon dioxide in their guts, and a bacteria that can use it to oxidize hydrogen, they can out compete methanogens because they grow so much more with the same resource.

And the cows would get more calories from the food they eat, producing more beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If this experiment were to be conducted, it is predictable that some or most cows could be adversely impacted by too much ferrous iron in the guts.

On the other hand, it is possible that some breeds of cattle are better able than others to cope with excessive bioavailable iron in their guts.

And ferric iron is offered as just ONE potential candidate for the job to cut methane emissions so we can get more bang for the buck on our cattle feed.

---------------

Methanogenesis = Minimally Exothermic Oxidation of Hydrogen

"Cow gas" emissions of methane (CH4) are belched out by cattle as a consequence of methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria under extreme low oxygen conditions, during a microbial feeding frenzy.

During methanogenesis, hydrogen is oxidized using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor.

H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O + small exothermic energy yield

Much more energy is released from hydrogen oxidation using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor, as during hydrogen combustion.

H2 + O2 = H2O + large exothermic energy yield

During methanogenesis, hydrogen gets oxidized with relatively small energy release. There is still a lot of chemical energy left behind to be released upon further oxidation. Such as during methane combustion.

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O + large exothermic energy yield

The hydrogen is fully oxidized, as H2O. The only further oxidation that might occur is to oxidize the OXYGEN atom in the water molecule, as during photosynthesis. It takes the input of solar energy to oxidize oxygen atoms in water molecules, tearing them apart to release oxygen gas, O2.

Cow belches of methane occur because carbon dioxide is the best terminal electron acceptor available to methanogenic archaea bacteria, competing in a feeding frenzy to exploit the hydrogen gas being generated during low oxygen fermentation in cow guts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This thread was inspired by the "Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" article, from the Washington Post (August 25, 2024) about how to reduce methane emissions from cattle belches.

It also gets into more details about the biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion.

This post gets further into it.

GOOGLE says:

"Yes, a 'terminal electron acceptor' refers to the final molecule in an electron transport chain that receives electrons at the end of the chain."

"Oxidants" are terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions.

Compared to carbon dioxide, oxygen is an STRONG terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation.

Methanogenesis is described as "slightly exothermic" because the energy yield using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation is relatively small.

MUCH MUCH more metabolic energy could be acquired by oxidizing the same amount of hydrogen using OXYGEN as terminal electron acceptor.

If there were oxygen available in the part of the cow guts where the methanogenic archaea bacteria live, the energy yield using the better terminal electron acceptor is so much greater that methanogens would be completely outcompeted by aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Note: Among the different "Kingdoms" of living organisms ("Animal Kingdom", "Plant Kingdom", etc.) there are two distinct "domains" within the Kingdom of bacteria.

Eubacteria = domain of all bacteria species except archaebacteria

archaebacteria = very oldest line of the simplest single celled organisms to establish ecosystems on Earth. It includes anoxygenic photosynthetic archaebacteria as well as many chemoautotrophic (lithotrophic, etc.) species. The bacteria in cow guts that carry out methanogenesis are archaebacteria.

If there were nitrate ion in the cow guts, and there very rarely is, it could be used instead of oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor by bacteria that
reduce nitrate in order to oxidize hydrogen.

This would give a relatively large energy yield, but not nearly as large as achieved using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

11/2 H2 + 2NO3- = 10H2O + OH- + N2

4H2 + NO3- = 2H2O + OH- + NH3

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can generate either nitrogen gas, N2, or ammonia, NH2 as the reduced nitrogen product. Note that it is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction as well, generating a hydroxide, OH- ion.

I'm not suggesting that we introduce cow guts to the same bacteria used in wastewater treatment and add nitrate to their feed. It might very well consume all the hydrogen before methanogens can turn it into methane. But nitrate reduction in guts can generate dangerous by products, even causing death such as "blue baby syndrome" (methemoglobinemia).

Hydrogen oxidizing, nitrate reducing bacteria are used as an example of how a competing bacteria could consume hydrogen in cow guts before the methanogenic archaea bacteria can turn it into methane. Putting enough nitrate into cattle feed to consume enough hydrogen to mitigate cow gas emissions would likely produce harmful amounts of hemoglobin-harmful compounds of nitrogen and oxygen.

If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or ferric iron(III), Fe3+ ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Ferric iron(III), Fe3+, gets reduced to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+. Manganese(IV), Mn4+, gets reduced to manganese(II), Mn2+. Much less energy yielded than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen!

Adding oxidized manganese(IV) or ferric iron(III) to cattle feed, and putting hydrogen oxidizing, manganese or iron reducing bacteria in their guts might work. The energy yield is so much higher than (slightly exothermic) methanogenesis, they could easily out compete the methanogens for available hydrogen.

If there were sulfate ions, SO4(2-) in the cow guts, sulfate reducing bacteria (yes, sulfate CAN be reduced) could use it as terminal electron acceptor for a relatively small energy yield from hydrogen oxidation.

5/2 H2 + SO4(2-) = 2H2O + 2OH- + H2S
This generates hydrogen sulfide, and is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction, generating 2 hydroxide, OH- ions.

The energy yield for bacteria using sulfate as terminal electron acceptor for oxidation of hydrogen is small. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But the exothermic yield of sulfate reduction is still LARGE compared to methanogenesis using carbon dioxide, the weakest terminal electron acceptor anyone can use.

In theory, we could put hydrogen oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria in cow guts and add a lot of sulfate ion to their feed. They could outcompete the methanogens and reduce methane emissions. But then the cow belches would smell like egg farts. Belching hydrogen sulfide near a spark could also turn a cow into a fire breathing dragon. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to cattle, so sulfate reducers may not be the best candidates to reduce cow gas emissions.

And for the most fun, let's introduce two different species of phosphorus reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate, PO4(3-) ion to the feed. The first bacteria reduces phosphorus(V) phosphate, PO4(3-) to phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-). The second bacteria reduces phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-) to phosphine, H3P.

Now the cows will belch phosphine, H3P. Now your cow becomes a fire breathing dragon WITHOUT need for a nearby spark. Phosphine ignites spontaneously upon contact with 21% O2 in the atmosphere.

Methanogenesis may only be "slightly exothermic", but it releases enough energy to supply methanogenic archaea bacteria with ALL their metabolic energy needs.

But the weakness of their terminal electron acceptor is also their weakness in competition with ANYONE ELSE who can use a better terminal electron acceptor, and such terminal electron acceptor is present and available for use to oxidize hydrogen.

Multiple approaches show great promise to have our beef and milk without cow gas emissions. Or at least with a whole lot LESS of them.

One approach is to optimize the chemical composition of the cattle feed for the diet that produces the fewest methane belches. Such as inclusion of some vegetation rich in tannins (polyphenols).

Another approach highlighted in recent news reports include potential genetic engineering of bacteria already found in cow guts to minimize methanogenesis.

And here, the basic biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion is discussed to include selective breeding of anaerobic bacteria that could out compete methanogenic archaea bacteria in cow guts for available hydrogen, given an appropriate available terminal electron acceptor.

The list of minerals that bacteria can use as terminal electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions is long and ancient. In many cases this kind of anaerobic respiration is still performed by archaea bacteria evolved long before any free oxygen was present in the air or water.

So far, "oxidant" terminal electron acceptors mentioned have been oxygen, [b]carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and phosphite. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy.

The list goes on.

Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Selenate, arsenate, borate, molybdate, vanadate, cobaltate... and that is only a partial list of anions that can be used as terminal electron acceptors for oxidation reactions carried out by bacteria.

In every case, an appropriate hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could be coupled to the terminal electron acceptor added to the cattle feed.

Potential disadvantages of one versus the other include the risk of acting as oxidants before arriving to where the methanogens live in cow guts, altering redox conditions, or altering pH conditions in a manner harmful to proper digestion.

In almost all cases of the terminal electron acceptors listed, the (reduced) chemical products can be toxic at high enough concentration.

If only a small amount is required to effectively prevent methanogenic archaea bacteria from causing significant methane emissions, the hydrogen sulfide, nitrite, ferrous iron(II), manganese(II), etc, might be produced at concentrations harmless to the cattle.

Hey retard, cows eat grass, do you want that banned too?

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Cattle Feed Calories and Organic Carbon WASTED as Methane Emissions

The methane that cows belch contains calories and organic carbon derived from their feed. Wasted, rather than used to help the cows produce beef or milk.

The initial motivation for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas emissions may have been because they are about one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL fringe benefit of increased production of beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If we just want to transform livestock feed into methane, bacteria can do it MUCH more efficiently than cattle. And we could capture that methane, rather than have it all belched out into the atmosphere.

We want the cattle to transform that feed into beef or milk, not methane.

If the hydrogen generated during fermentation in cow guts is NOT being transformed into methane to be lost, it could instead be transformed into greater microbial biomass. That greater microbial biomass could then be transformed into greater production of beef and milk.

FATTER COWS from the same amount of feed, with NO COW GAS EMISSIONS



Sounds like a pipe dream or science fiction?

Here's an example of how it might work.

We could add ferric iron, iron(III), Fe+ to the cattle feed.

We could selectively breed an iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria to live inside cow guts.

We put those bacteria into the feed, along with the ferric iron they will need as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen produced during a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy.

The iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could then compete with the methanogenic archaebacteria already present in cow guts.

The iron reducers would get a lot more bang for the buck than the methanogens, for the same amount of hydrogen. They could easily out compete them, able to grow much more than the methanogens, from the same amount of hydrogen available.

This means the cows would stop belching methane.

This also means the cows would get FATTER from the same amount of feed.

All those calories of chemical energy in the methane belches can instead be calories to fatten up the cattle.

Iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can produce MUCH MORE biomass than methanogens. Eventually that bacterial biomass gets digested by the cow.

There is a whole lot more chemical energy lost from the cow in a methane belches than there would be in ferrous iron rich cow manure.

Some energy is acquired by bacteria that oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, but that is very little compared to what a bacteria gets as a methane oxidizer.

So, if we provide cattle with a better terminal electron acceptor than carbon dioxide in their guts, and a bacteria that can use it to oxidize hydrogen, they can out compete methanogens because they grow so much more with the same resource.

And the cows would get more calories from the food they eat, producing more beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If this experiment were to be conducted, it is predictable that some or most cows could be adversely impacted by too much ferrous iron in the guts.

On the other hand, it is possible that some breeds of cattle are better able than others to cope with excessive bioavailable iron in their guts.

And ferric iron is offered as just ONE potential candidate for the job to cut methane emissions so we can get more bang for the buck on our cattle feed.

---------------

Methanogenesis = Minimally Exothermic Oxidation of Hydrogen

"Cow gas" emissions of methane (CH4) are belched out by cattle as a consequence of methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria under extreme low oxygen conditions, during a microbial feeding frenzy.

During methanogenesis, hydrogen is oxidized using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor.

H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O + small exothermic energy yield

Much more energy is released from hydrogen oxidation using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor, as during hydrogen combustion.

H2 + O2 = H2O + large exothermic energy yield

During methanogenesis, hydrogen gets oxidized with relatively small energy release. There is still a lot of chemical energy left behind to be released upon further oxidation. Such as during methane combustion.

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O + large exothermic energy yield

The hydrogen is fully oxidized, as H2O. The only further oxidation that might occur is to oxidize the OXYGEN atom in the water molecule, as during photosynthesis. It takes the input of solar energy to oxidize oxygen atoms in water molecules, tearing them apart to release oxygen gas, O2.

Cow belches of methane occur because carbon dioxide is the best terminal electron acceptor available to methanogenic archaea bacteria, competing in a feeding frenzy to exploit the hydrogen gas being generated during low oxygen fermentation in cow guts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This thread was inspired by the "Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" article, from the Washington Post (August 25, 2024) about how to reduce methane emissions from cattle belches.

It also gets into more details about the biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion.

This post gets further into it.

GOOGLE says:

"Yes, a 'terminal electron acceptor' refers to the final molecule in an electron transport chain that receives electrons at the end of the chain."

"Oxidants" are terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions.

Compared to carbon dioxide, oxygen is an STRONG terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation.

Methanogenesis is described as "slightly exothermic" because the energy yield using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation is relatively small.

MUCH MUCH more metabolic energy could be acquired by oxidizing the same amount of hydrogen using OXYGEN as terminal electron acceptor.

If there were oxygen available in the part of the cow guts where the methanogenic archaea bacteria live, the energy yield using the better terminal electron acceptor is so much greater that methanogens would be completely outcompeted by aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Note: Among the different "Kingdoms" of living organisms ("Animal Kingdom", "Plant Kingdom", etc.) there are two distinct "domains" within the Kingdom of bacteria.

Eubacteria = domain of all bacteria species except archaebacteria

archaebacteria = very oldest line of the simplest single celled organisms to establish ecosystems on Earth. It includes anoxygenic photosynthetic archaebacteria as well as many chemoautotrophic (lithotrophic, etc.) species. The bacteria in cow guts that carry out methanogenesis are archaebacteria.

If there were nitrate ion in the cow guts, and there very rarely is, it could be used instead of oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor by bacteria that
reduce nitrate in order to oxidize hydrogen.

This would give a relatively large energy yield, but not nearly as large as achieved using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

11/2 H2 + 2NO3- = 10H2O + OH- + N2

4H2 + NO3- = 2H2O + OH- + NH3

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can generate either nitrogen gas, N2, or ammonia, NH2 as the reduced nitrogen product. Note that it is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction as well, generating a hydroxide, OH- ion.

I'm not suggesting that we introduce cow guts to the same bacteria used in wastewater treatment and add nitrate to their feed. It might very well consume all the hydrogen before methanogens can turn it into methane. But nitrate reduction in guts can generate dangerous by products, even causing death such as "blue baby syndrome" (methemoglobinemia).

Hydrogen oxidizing, nitrate reducing bacteria are used as an example of how a competing bacteria could consume hydrogen in cow guts before the methanogenic archaea bacteria can turn it into methane. Putting enough nitrate into cattle feed to consume enough hydrogen to mitigate cow gas emissions would likely produce harmful amounts of hemoglobin-harmful compounds of nitrogen and oxygen.

If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or ferric iron(III), Fe3+ ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Ferric iron(III), Fe3+, gets reduced to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+. Manganese(IV), Mn4+, gets reduced to manganese(II), Mn2+. Much less energy yielded than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen!

Adding oxidized manganese(IV) or ferric iron(III) to cattle feed, and putting hydrogen oxidizing, manganese or iron reducing bacteria in their guts might work. The energy yield is so much higher than (slightly exothermic) methanogenesis, they could easily out compete the methanogens for available hydrogen.

If there were sulfate ions, SO4(2-) in the cow guts, sulfate reducing bacteria (yes, sulfate CAN be reduced) could use it as terminal electron acceptor for a relatively small energy yield from hydrogen oxidation.

5/2 H2 + SO4(2-) = 2H2O + 2OH- + H2S
This generates hydrogen sulfide, and is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction, generating 2 hydroxide, OH- ions.

The energy yield for bacteria using sulfate as terminal electron acceptor for oxidation of hydrogen is small. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But the exothermic yield of sulfate reduction is still LARGE compared to methanogenesis using carbon dioxide, the weakest terminal electron acceptor anyone can use.

In theory, we could put hydrogen oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria in cow guts and add a lot of sulfate ion to their feed. They could outcompete the methanogens and reduce methane emissions. But then the cow belches would smell like egg farts. Belching hydrogen sulfide near a spark could also turn a cow into a fire breathing dragon. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to cattle, so sulfate reducers may not be the best candidates to reduce cow gas emissions.

And for the most fun, let's introduce two different species of phosphorus reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate, PO4(3-) ion to the feed. The first bacteria reduces phosphorus(V) phosphate, PO4(3-) to phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-). The second bacteria reduces phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-) to phosphine, H3P.

Now the cows will belch phosphine, H3P. Now your cow becomes a fire breathing dragon WITHOUT need for a nearby spark. Phosphine ignites spontaneously upon contact with 21% O2 in the atmosphere.

Methanogenesis may only be "slightly exothermic", but it releases enough energy to supply methanogenic archaea bacteria with ALL their metabolic energy needs.

But the weakness of their terminal electron acceptor is also their weakness in competition with ANYONE ELSE who can use a better terminal electron acceptor, and such terminal electron acceptor is present and available for use to oxidize hydrogen.

Multiple approaches show great promise to have our beef and milk without cow gas emissions. Or at least with a whole lot LESS of them.

One approach is to optimize the chemical composition of the cattle feed for the diet that produces the fewest methane belches. Such as inclusion of some vegetation rich in tannins (polyphenols).

Another approach highlighted in recent news reports include potential genetic engineering of bacteria already found in cow guts to minimize methanogenesis.

And here, the basic biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion is discussed to include selective breeding of anaerobic bacteria that could out compete methanogenic archaea bacteria in cow guts for available hydrogen, given an appropriate available terminal electron acceptor.

The list of minerals that bacteria can use as terminal electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions is long and ancient. In many cases this kind of anaerobic respiration is still performed by archaea bacteria evolved long before any free oxygen was present in the air or water.

So far, "oxidant" terminal electron acceptors mentioned have been oxygen, [b]carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and phosphite. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy.

The list goes on.

Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Selenate, arsenate, borate, molybdate, vanadate, cobaltate... and that is only a partial list of anions that can be used as terminal electron acceptors for oxidation reactions carried out by bacteria.

In every case, an appropriate hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could be coupled to the terminal electron acceptor added to the cattle feed.

Potential disadvantages of one versus the other include the risk of acting as oxidants before arriving to where the methanogens live in cow guts, altering redox conditions, or altering pH conditions in a manner harmful to proper digestion.

In almost all cases of the terminal electron acceptors listed, the (reduced) chemical products can be toxic at high enough concentration.

If only a small amount is required to effectively prevent methanogenic archaea bacteria from causing significant methane emissions, the hydrogen sulfide, nitrite, ferrous iron(II), manganese(II), etc, might be produced at concentrations harmless to the cattle.

Hey retard, cows eat grass, do you want that banned too?

More than 2200 views.

They can't ALL be scientifically illiterate Internet trolls.

The idea is to keep getting beef and milk without so many methane emissions.

The point being made is we can get even MORE beef and milk from the same amount of feed, if all those feed calories aren't wasted as methane emissions.

The only thing I want "banned" is the troll who drives decent folks away...

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Cattle Feed Calories and Organic Carbon WASTED as Methane Emissions

The methane that cows belch contains calories and organic carbon derived from their feed. Wasted, rather than used to help the cows produce beef or milk.

The initial motivation for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas emissions may have been because they are about one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL fringe benefit of increased production of beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If we just want to transform livestock feed into methane, bacteria can do it MUCH more efficiently than cattle. And we could capture that methane, rather than have it all belched out into the atmosphere.

We want the cattle to transform that feed into beef or milk, not methane.

If the hydrogen generated during fermentation in cow guts is NOT being transformed into methane to be lost, it could instead be transformed into greater microbial biomass. That greater microbial biomass could then be transformed into greater production of beef and milk.

FATTER COWS from the same amount of feed, with NO COW GAS EMISSIONS



Sounds like a pipe dream or science fiction?

Here's an example of how it might work.

We could add ferric iron, iron(III), Fe+ to the cattle feed.

We could selectively breed an iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria to live inside cow guts.

We put those bacteria into the feed, along with the ferric iron they will need as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen produced during a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy.

The iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could then compete with the methanogenic archaebacteria already present in cow guts.

The iron reducers would get a lot more bang for the buck than the methanogens, for the same amount of hydrogen. They could easily out compete them, able to grow much more than the methanogens, from the same amount of hydrogen available.

This means the cows would stop belching methane.

This also means the cows would get FATTER from the same amount of feed.

All those calories of chemical energy in the methane belches can instead be calories to fatten up the cattle.

Iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can produce MUCH MORE biomass than methanogens. Eventually that bacterial biomass gets digested by the cow.

There is a whole lot more chemical energy lost from the cow in a methane belches than there would be in ferrous iron rich cow manure.

Some energy is acquired by bacteria that oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, but that is very little compared to what a bacteria gets as a methane oxidizer.

So, if we provide cattle with a better terminal electron acceptor than carbon dioxide in their guts, and a bacteria that can use it to oxidize hydrogen, they can out compete methanogens because they grow so much more with the same resource.

And the cows would get more calories from the food they eat, producing more beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If this experiment were to be conducted, it is predictable that some or most cows could be adversely impacted by too much ferrous iron in the guts.

On the other hand, it is possible that some breeds of cattle are better able than others to cope with excessive bioavailable iron in their guts.

And ferric iron is offered as just ONE potential candidate for the job to cut methane emissions so we can get more bang for the buck on our cattle feed.

---------------

Methanogenesis = Minimally Exothermic Oxidation of Hydrogen

"Cow gas" emissions of methane (CH4) are belched out by cattle as a consequence of methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria under extreme low oxygen conditions, during a microbial feeding frenzy.

During methanogenesis, hydrogen is oxidized using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor.

H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O + small exothermic energy yield

Much more energy is released from hydrogen oxidation using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor, as during hydrogen combustion.

H2 + O2 = H2O + large exothermic energy yield

During methanogenesis, hydrogen gets oxidized with relatively small energy release. There is still a lot of chemical energy left behind to be released upon further oxidation. Such as during methane combustion.

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O + large exothermic energy yield

The hydrogen is fully oxidized, as H2O. The only further oxidation that might occur is to oxidize the OXYGEN atom in the water molecule, as during photosynthesis. It takes the input of solar energy to oxidize oxygen atoms in water molecules, tearing them apart to release oxygen gas, O2.

Cow belches of methane occur because carbon dioxide is the best terminal electron acceptor available to methanogenic archaea bacteria, competing in a feeding frenzy to exploit the hydrogen gas being generated during low oxygen fermentation in cow guts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This thread was inspired by the "Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" article, from the Washington Post (August 25, 2024) about how to reduce methane emissions from cattle belches.

It also gets into more details about the biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion.

This post gets further into it.

GOOGLE says:

"Yes, a 'terminal electron acceptor' refers to the final molecule in an electron transport chain that receives electrons at the end of the chain."

"Oxidants" are terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions.

Compared to carbon dioxide, oxygen is an STRONG terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation.

Methanogenesis is described as "slightly exothermic" because the energy yield using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation is relatively small.

MUCH MUCH more metabolic energy could be acquired by oxidizing the same amount of hydrogen using OXYGEN as terminal electron acceptor.

If there were oxygen available in the part of the cow guts where the methanogenic archaea bacteria live, the energy yield using the better terminal electron acceptor is so much greater that methanogens would be completely outcompeted by aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Note: Among the different "Kingdoms" of living organisms ("Animal Kingdom", "Plant Kingdom", etc.) there are two distinct "domains" within the Kingdom of bacteria.

Eubacteria = domain of all bacteria species except archaebacteria

archaebacteria = very oldest line of the simplest single celled organisms to establish ecosystems on Earth. It includes anoxygenic photosynthetic archaebacteria as well as many chemoautotrophic (lithotrophic, etc.) species. The bacteria in cow guts that carry out methanogenesis are archaebacteria.

If there were nitrate ion in the cow guts, and there very rarely is, it could be used instead of oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor by bacteria that
reduce nitrate in order to oxidize hydrogen.

This would give a relatively large energy yield, but not nearly as large as achieved using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

11/2 H2 + 2NO3- = 10H2O + OH- + N2

4H2 + NO3- = 2H2O + OH- + NH3

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can generate either nitrogen gas, N2, or ammonia, NH2 as the reduced nitrogen product. Note that it is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction as well, generating a hydroxide, OH- ion.

I'm not suggesting that we introduce cow guts to the same bacteria used in wastewater treatment and add nitrate to their feed. It might very well consume all the hydrogen before methanogens can turn it into methane. But nitrate reduction in guts can generate dangerous by products, even causing death such as "blue baby syndrome" (methemoglobinemia).

Hydrogen oxidizing, nitrate reducing bacteria are used as an example of how a competing bacteria could consume hydrogen in cow guts before the methanogenic archaea bacteria can turn it into methane. Putting enough nitrate into cattle feed to consume enough hydrogen to mitigate cow gas emissions would likely produce harmful amounts of hemoglobin-harmful compounds of nitrogen and oxygen.

If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or ferric iron(III), Fe3+ ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Ferric iron(III), Fe3+, gets reduced to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+. Manganese(IV), Mn4+, gets reduced to manganese(II), Mn2+. Much less energy yielded than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen!

Adding oxidized manganese(IV) or ferric iron(III) to cattle feed, and putting hydrogen oxidizing, manganese or iron reducing bacteria in their guts might work. The energy yield is so much higher than (slightly exothermic) methanogenesis, they could easily out compete the methanogens for available hydrogen.

If there were sulfate ions, SO4(2-) in the cow guts, sulfate reducing bacteria (yes, sulfate CAN be reduced) could use it as terminal electron acceptor for a relatively small energy yield from hydrogen oxidation.

5/2 H2 + SO4(2-) = 2H2O + 2OH- + H2S
This generates hydrogen sulfide, and is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction, generating 2 hydroxide, OH- ions.

The energy yield for bacteria using sulfate as terminal electron acceptor for oxidation of hydrogen is small. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But the exothermic yield of sulfate reduction is still LARGE compared to methanogenesis using carbon dioxide, the weakest terminal electron acceptor anyone can use.

In theory, we could put hydrogen oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria in cow guts and add a lot of sulfate ion to their feed. They could outcompete the methanogens and reduce methane emissions. But then the cow belches would smell like egg farts. Belching hydrogen sulfide near a spark could also turn a cow into a fire breathing dragon. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to cattle, so sulfate reducers may not be the best candidates to reduce cow gas emissions.

And for the most fun, let's introduce two different species of phosphorus reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate, PO4(3-) ion to the feed. The first bacteria reduces phosphorus(V) phosphate, PO4(3-) to phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-). The second bacteria reduces phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-) to phosphine, H3P.

Now the cows will belch phosphine, H3P. Now your cow becomes a fire breathing dragon WITHOUT need for a nearby spark. Phosphine ignites spontaneously upon contact with 21% O2 in the atmosphere.

Methanogenesis may only be "slightly exothermic", but it releases enough energy to supply methanogenic archaea bacteria with ALL their metabolic energy needs.

But the weakness of their terminal electron acceptor is also their weakness in competition with ANYONE ELSE who can use a better terminal electron acceptor, and such terminal electron acceptor is present and available for use to oxidize hydrogen.

Multiple approaches show great promise to have our beef and milk without cow gas emissions. Or at least with a whole lot LESS of them.

One approach is to optimize the chemical composition of the cattle feed for the diet that produces the fewest methane belches. Such as inclusion of some vegetation rich in tannins (polyphenols).

Another approach highlighted in recent news reports include potential genetic engineering of bacteria already found in cow guts to minimize methanogenesis.

And here, the basic biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion is discussed to include selective breeding of anaerobic bacteria that could out compete methanogenic archaea bacteria in cow guts for available hydrogen, given an appropriate available terminal electron acceptor.

The list of minerals that bacteria can use as terminal electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions is long and ancient. In many cases this kind of anaerobic respiration is still performed by archaea bacteria evolved long before any free oxygen was present in the air or water.

So far, "oxidant" terminal electron acceptors mentioned have been oxygen, [b]carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and phosphite. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy.

The list goes on.

Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Selenate, arsenate, borate, molybdate, vanadate, cobaltate... and that is only a partial list of anions that can be used as terminal electron acceptors for oxidation reactions carried out by bacteria.

In every case, an appropriate hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could be coupled to the terminal electron acceptor added to the cattle feed.

Potential disadvantages of one versus the other include the risk of acting as oxidants before arriving to where the methanogens live in cow guts, altering redox conditions, or altering pH conditions in a manner harmful to proper digestion.

In almost all cases of the terminal electron acceptors listed, the (reduced) chemical products can be toxic at high enough concentration.

If only a small amount is required to effectively prevent methanogenic archaea bacteria from causing significant methane emissions, the hydrogen sulfide, nitrite, ferrous iron(II), manganese(II), etc, might be produced at concentrations harmless to the cattle.

Hey retard, cows eat grass, do you want that banned too?

More than 2200 views.

They can't ALL be scientifically illiterate Internet trolls.

The idea is to keep getting beef and milk without so many methane emissions.

The point being made is we can get even MORE beef and milk from the same amount of feed, if all those feed calories aren't wasted as methane emissions.

The only thing I want "banned" is the troll who drives decent folks away...

Nope because if cows do not eat the grass, it decays releasing methane anyway

True story along with your mental issues

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Cattle Feed Calories and Organic Carbon WASTED as Methane Emissions

The methane that cows belch contains calories and organic carbon derived from their feed. Wasted, rather than used to help the cows produce beef or milk.

The initial motivation for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas emissions may have been because they are about one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL fringe benefit of increased production of beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If we just want to transform livestock feed into methane, bacteria can do it MUCH more efficiently than cattle. And we could capture that methane, rather than have it all belched out into the atmosphere.

We want the cattle to transform that feed into beef or milk, not methane.

If the hydrogen generated during fermentation in cow guts is NOT being transformed into methane to be lost, it could instead be transformed into greater microbial biomass. That greater microbial biomass could then be transformed into greater production of beef and milk.

FATTER COWS from the same amount of feed, with NO COW GAS EMISSIONS



Sounds like a pipe dream or science fiction?

Here's an example of how it might work.

We could add ferric iron, iron(III), Fe+ to the cattle feed.

We could selectively breed an iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria to live inside cow guts.

We put those bacteria into the feed, along with the ferric iron they will need as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen produced during a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy.

The iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could then compete with the methanogenic archaebacteria already present in cow guts.

The iron reducers would get a lot more bang for the buck than the methanogens, for the same amount of hydrogen. They could easily out compete them, able to grow much more than the methanogens, from the same amount of hydrogen available.

This means the cows would stop belching methane.

This also means the cows would get FATTER from the same amount of feed.

All those calories of chemical energy in the methane belches can instead be calories to fatten up the cattle.

Iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can produce MUCH MORE biomass than methanogens. Eventually that bacterial biomass gets digested by the cow.

There is a whole lot more chemical energy lost from the cow in a methane belches than there would be in ferrous iron rich cow manure.

Some energy is acquired by bacteria that oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, but that is very little compared to what a bacteria gets as a methane oxidizer.

So, if we provide cattle with a better terminal electron acceptor than carbon dioxide in their guts, and a bacteria that can use it to oxidize hydrogen, they can out compete methanogens because they grow so much more with the same resource.

And the cows would get more calories from the food they eat, producing more beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If this experiment were to be conducted, it is predictable that some or most cows could be adversely impacted by too much ferrous iron in the guts.

On the other hand, it is possible that some breeds of cattle are better able than others to cope with excessive bioavailable iron in their guts.

And ferric iron is offered as just ONE potential candidate for the job to cut methane emissions so we can get more bang for the buck on our cattle feed.

---------------

Methanogenesis = Minimally Exothermic Oxidation of Hydrogen

"Cow gas" emissions of methane (CH4) are belched out by cattle as a consequence of methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria under extreme low oxygen conditions, during a microbial feeding frenzy.

During methanogenesis, hydrogen is oxidized using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor.

H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O + small exothermic energy yield

Much more energy is released from hydrogen oxidation using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor, as during hydrogen combustion.

H2 + O2 = H2O + large exothermic energy yield

During methanogenesis, hydrogen gets oxidized with relatively small energy release. There is still a lot of chemical energy left behind to be released upon further oxidation. Such as during methane combustion.

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O + large exothermic energy yield

The hydrogen is fully oxidized, as H2O. The only further oxidation that might occur is to oxidize the OXYGEN atom in the water molecule, as during photosynthesis. It takes the input of solar energy to oxidize oxygen atoms in water molecules, tearing them apart to release oxygen gas, O2.

Cow belches of methane occur because carbon dioxide is the best terminal electron acceptor available to methanogenic archaea bacteria, competing in a feeding frenzy to exploit the hydrogen gas being generated during low oxygen fermentation in cow guts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This thread was inspired by the "Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" article, from the Washington Post (August 25, 2024) about how to reduce methane emissions from cattle belches.

It also gets into more details about the biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion.

This post gets further into it.

GOOGLE says:

"Yes, a 'terminal electron acceptor' refers to the final molecule in an electron transport chain that receives electrons at the end of the chain."

"Oxidants" are terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions.

Compared to carbon dioxide, oxygen is an STRONG terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation.

Methanogenesis is described as "slightly exothermic" because the energy yield using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation is relatively small.

MUCH MUCH more metabolic energy could be acquired by oxidizing the same amount of hydrogen using OXYGEN as terminal electron acceptor.

If there were oxygen available in the part of the cow guts where the methanogenic archaea bacteria live, the energy yield using the better terminal electron acceptor is so much greater that methanogens would be completely outcompeted by aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Note: Among the different "Kingdoms" of living organisms ("Animal Kingdom", "Plant Kingdom", etc.) there are two distinct "domains" within the Kingdom of bacteria.

Eubacteria = domain of all bacteria species except archaebacteria

archaebacteria = very oldest line of the simplest single celled organisms to establish ecosystems on Earth. It includes anoxygenic photosynthetic archaebacteria as well as many chemoautotrophic (lithotrophic, etc.) species. The bacteria in cow guts that carry out methanogenesis are archaebacteria.

If there were nitrate ion in the cow guts, and there very rarely is, it could be used instead of oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor by bacteria that
reduce nitrate in order to oxidize hydrogen.

This would give a relatively large energy yield, but not nearly as large as achieved using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

11/2 H2 + 2NO3- = 10H2O + OH- + N2

4H2 + NO3- = 2H2O + OH- + NH3

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can generate either nitrogen gas, N2, or ammonia, NH2 as the reduced nitrogen product. Note that it is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction as well, generating a hydroxide, OH- ion.

I'm not suggesting that we introduce cow guts to the same bacteria used in wastewater treatment and add nitrate to their feed. It might very well consume all the hydrogen before methanogens can turn it into methane. But nitrate reduction in guts can generate dangerous by products, even causing death such as "blue baby syndrome" (methemoglobinemia).

Hydrogen oxidizing, nitrate reducing bacteria are used as an example of how a competing bacteria could consume hydrogen in cow guts before the methanogenic archaea bacteria can turn it into methane. Putting enough nitrate into cattle feed to consume enough hydrogen to mitigate cow gas emissions would likely produce harmful amounts of hemoglobin-harmful compounds of nitrogen and oxygen.

If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or ferric iron(III), Fe3+ ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Ferric iron(III), Fe3+, gets reduced to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+. Manganese(IV), Mn4+, gets reduced to manganese(II), Mn2+. Much less energy yielded than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen!

Adding oxidized manganese(IV) or ferric iron(III) to cattle feed, and putting hydrogen oxidizing, manganese or iron reducing bacteria in their guts might work. The energy yield is so much higher than (slightly exothermic) methanogenesis, they could easily out compete the methanogens for available hydrogen.

If there were sulfate ions, SO4(2-) in the cow guts, sulfate reducing bacteria (yes, sulfate CAN be reduced) could use it as terminal electron acceptor for a relatively small energy yield from hydrogen oxidation.

5/2 H2 + SO4(2-) = 2H2O + 2OH- + H2S
This generates hydrogen sulfide, and is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction, generating 2 hydroxide, OH- ions.

The energy yield for bacteria using sulfate as terminal electron acceptor for oxidation of hydrogen is small. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But the exothermic yield of sulfate reduction is still LARGE compared to methanogenesis using carbon dioxide, the weakest terminal electron acceptor anyone can use.

In theory, we could put hydrogen oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria in cow guts and add a lot of sulfate ion to their feed. They could outcompete the methanogens and reduce methane emissions. But then the cow belches would smell like egg farts. Belching hydrogen sulfide near a spark could also turn a cow into a fire breathing dragon. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to cattle, so sulfate reducers may not be the best candidates to reduce cow gas emissions.

And for the most fun, let's introduce two different species of phosphorus reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate, PO4(3-) ion to the feed. The first bacteria reduces phosphorus(V) phosphate, PO4(3-) to phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-). The second bacteria reduces phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-) to phosphine, H3P.

Now the cows will belch phosphine, H3P. Now your cow becomes a fire breathing dragon WITHOUT need for a nearby spark. Phosphine ignites spontaneously upon contact with 21% O2 in the atmosphere.

Methanogenesis may only be "slightly exothermic", but it releases enough energy to supply methanogenic archaea bacteria with ALL their metabolic energy needs.

But the weakness of their terminal electron acceptor is also their weakness in competition with ANYONE ELSE who can use a better terminal electron acceptor, and such terminal electron acceptor is present and available for use to oxidize hydrogen.

Multiple approaches show great promise to have our beef and milk without cow gas emissions. Or at least with a whole lot LESS of them.

One approach is to optimize the chemical composition of the cattle feed for the diet that produces the fewest methane belches. Such as inclusion of some vegetation rich in tannins (polyphenols).

Another approach highlighted in recent news reports include potential genetic engineering of bacteria already found in cow guts to minimize methanogenesis.

And here, the basic biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion is discussed to include selective breeding of anaerobic bacteria that could out compete methanogenic archaea bacteria in cow guts for available hydrogen, given an appropriate available terminal electron acceptor.

The list of minerals that bacteria can use as terminal electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions is long and ancient. In many cases this kind of anaerobic respiration is still performed by archaea bacteria evolved long before any free oxygen was present in the air or water.

So far, "oxidant" terminal electron acceptors mentioned have been oxygen, [b]carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and phosphite. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy.

The list goes on.

Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Selenate, arsenate, borate, molybdate, vanadate, cobaltate... and that is only a partial list of anions that can be used as terminal electron acceptors for oxidation reactions carried out by bacteria.

In every case, an appropriate hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could be coupled to the terminal electron acceptor added to the cattle feed.

Potential disadvantages of one versus the other include the risk of acting as oxidants before arriving to where the methanogens live in cow guts, altering redox conditions, or altering pH conditions in a manner harmful to proper digestion.

In almost all cases of the terminal electron acceptors listed, the (reduced) chemical products can be toxic at high enough concentration.

If only a small amount is required to effectively prevent methanogenic archaea bacteria from causing significant methane emissions, the hydrogen sulfide, nitrite, ferrous iron(II), manganese(II), etc, might be produced at concentrations harmless to the cattle.

Hey retard, cows eat grass, do you want that banned too?

More than 2200 views.

They can't ALL be scientifically illiterate Internet trolls.

The idea is to keep getting beef and milk without so many methane emissions.

The point being made is we can get even MORE beef and milk from the same amount of feed, if all those feed calories aren't wasted as methane emissions.

The only thing I want "banned" is the troll who drives decent folks away...

Nope because if cows do not eat the grass, it decays releasing methane anyway

True story along with your mental issues

Apparently, you have been misinformed about how the overwhelming majority of decaying grass in the world gets transformed.

Carbon dioxide, not methane, is the product of aerobic decomposition.

Methane will only form if the grass decomposes under very low oxygen conditions.

Perhaps you are aware of some common situation where uneaten grass decays into methane. Unless it gets flooded. Most grass doesn't grow or decompose under waterlogged conditions.

Swan, you have no actual interest in the topic.

Are you really so bored, lonely, or whatever that it is good use of your time to write inane comments about subjects you know or care nothing about?

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Cattle Feed Calories and Organic Carbon WASTED as Methane Emissions

The methane that cows belch contains calories and organic carbon derived from their feed. Wasted, rather than used to help the cows produce beef or milk.

The initial motivation for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas emissions may have been because they are about one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions.

However, there will be a SUBSTANTIAL fringe benefit of increased production of beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If we just want to transform livestock feed into methane, bacteria can do it MUCH more efficiently than cattle. And we could capture that methane, rather than have it all belched out into the atmosphere.

We want the cattle to transform that feed into beef or milk, not methane.

If the hydrogen generated during fermentation in cow guts is NOT being transformed into methane to be lost, it could instead be transformed into greater microbial biomass. That greater microbial biomass could then be transformed into greater production of beef and milk.

FATTER COWS from the same amount of feed, with NO COW GAS EMISSIONS



Sounds like a pipe dream or science fiction?

Here's an example of how it might work.

We could add ferric iron, iron(III), Fe+ to the cattle feed.

We could selectively breed an iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria to live inside cow guts.

We put those bacteria into the feed, along with the ferric iron they will need as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen produced during a low oxygen microbial feeding frenzy.

The iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could then compete with the methanogenic archaebacteria already present in cow guts.

The iron reducers would get a lot more bang for the buck than the methanogens, for the same amount of hydrogen. They could easily out compete them, able to grow much more than the methanogens, from the same amount of hydrogen available.

This means the cows would stop belching methane.

This also means the cows would get FATTER from the same amount of feed.

All those calories of chemical energy in the methane belches can instead be calories to fatten up the cattle.

Iron reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria can produce MUCH MORE biomass than methanogens. Eventually that bacterial biomass gets digested by the cow.

There is a whole lot more chemical energy lost from the cow in a methane belches than there would be in ferrous iron rich cow manure.

Some energy is acquired by bacteria that oxidize ferrous iron to ferric iron, but that is very little compared to what a bacteria gets as a methane oxidizer.

So, if we provide cattle with a better terminal electron acceptor than carbon dioxide in their guts, and a bacteria that can use it to oxidize hydrogen, they can out compete methanogens because they grow so much more with the same resource.

And the cows would get more calories from the food they eat, producing more beef and milk from the same amount of feed.

If this experiment were to be conducted, it is predictable that some or most cows could be adversely impacted by too much ferrous iron in the guts.

On the other hand, it is possible that some breeds of cattle are better able than others to cope with excessive bioavailable iron in their guts.

And ferric iron is offered as just ONE potential candidate for the job to cut methane emissions so we can get more bang for the buck on our cattle feed.

---------------

Methanogenesis = Minimally Exothermic Oxidation of Hydrogen

"Cow gas" emissions of methane (CH4) are belched out by cattle as a consequence of methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria under extreme low oxygen conditions, during a microbial feeding frenzy.

During methanogenesis, hydrogen is oxidized using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor.

H2 + CO2 = CH4 + H2O + small exothermic energy yield

Much more energy is released from hydrogen oxidation using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor, as during hydrogen combustion.

H2 + O2 = H2O + large exothermic energy yield

During methanogenesis, hydrogen gets oxidized with relatively small energy release. There is still a lot of chemical energy left behind to be released upon further oxidation. Such as during methane combustion.

CH4 + O2 = CO2 + H2O + large exothermic energy yield

The hydrogen is fully oxidized, as H2O. The only further oxidation that might occur is to oxidize the OXYGEN atom in the water molecule, as during photosynthesis. It takes the input of solar energy to oxidize oxygen atoms in water molecules, tearing them apart to release oxygen gas, O2.

Cow belches of methane occur because carbon dioxide is the best terminal electron acceptor available to methanogenic archaea bacteria, competing in a feeding frenzy to exploit the hydrogen gas being generated during low oxygen fermentation in cow guts.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

This thread was inspired by the "Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" article, from the Washington Post (August 25, 2024) about how to reduce methane emissions from cattle belches.

It also gets into more details about the biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion.

This post gets further into it.

GOOGLE says:

"Yes, a 'terminal electron acceptor' refers to the final molecule in an electron transport chain that receives electrons at the end of the chain."

"Oxidants" are terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions.

Compared to carbon dioxide, oxygen is an STRONG terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation.

Methanogenesis is described as "slightly exothermic" because the energy yield using carbon dioxide as a terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation is relatively small.

MUCH MUCH more metabolic energy could be acquired by oxidizing the same amount of hydrogen using OXYGEN as terminal electron acceptor.

If there were oxygen available in the part of the cow guts where the methanogenic archaea bacteria live, the energy yield using the better terminal electron acceptor is so much greater that methanogens would be completely outcompeted by aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria.

Note: Among the different "Kingdoms" of living organisms ("Animal Kingdom", "Plant Kingdom", etc.) there are two distinct "domains" within the Kingdom of bacteria.

Eubacteria = domain of all bacteria species except archaebacteria

archaebacteria = very oldest line of the simplest single celled organisms to establish ecosystems on Earth. It includes anoxygenic photosynthetic archaebacteria as well as many chemoautotrophic (lithotrophic, etc.) species. The bacteria in cow guts that carry out methanogenesis are archaebacteria.

If there were nitrate ion in the cow guts, and there very rarely is, it could be used instead of oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor by bacteria that
reduce nitrate in order to oxidize hydrogen.

This would give a relatively large energy yield, but not nearly as large as achieved using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor.

11/2 H2 + 2NO3- = 10H2O + OH- + N2

4H2 + NO3- = 2H2O + OH- + NH3

Dissimilatory nitrate reduction by bacteria under low oxygen conditions can generate either nitrogen gas, N2, or ammonia, NH2 as the reduced nitrogen product. Note that it is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction as well, generating a hydroxide, OH- ion.

I'm not suggesting that we introduce cow guts to the same bacteria used in wastewater treatment and add nitrate to their feed. It might very well consume all the hydrogen before methanogens can turn it into methane. But nitrate reduction in guts can generate dangerous by products, even causing death such as "blue baby syndrome" (methemoglobinemia).

Hydrogen oxidizing, nitrate reducing bacteria are used as an example of how a competing bacteria could consume hydrogen in cow guts before the methanogenic archaea bacteria can turn it into methane. Putting enough nitrate into cattle feed to consume enough hydrogen to mitigate cow gas emissions would likely produce harmful amounts of hemoglobin-harmful compounds of nitrogen and oxygen.

If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or ferric iron(III), Fe3+ ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Ferric iron(III), Fe3+, gets reduced to ferrous iron(II), Fe2+. Manganese(IV), Mn4+, gets reduced to manganese(II), Mn2+. Much less energy yielded than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen!

Adding oxidized manganese(IV) or ferric iron(III) to cattle feed, and putting hydrogen oxidizing, manganese or iron reducing bacteria in their guts might work. The energy yield is so much higher than (slightly exothermic) methanogenesis, they could easily out compete the methanogens for available hydrogen.

If there were sulfate ions, SO4(2-) in the cow guts, sulfate reducing bacteria (yes, sulfate CAN be reduced) could use it as terminal electron acceptor for a relatively small energy yield from hydrogen oxidation.

5/2 H2 + SO4(2-) = 2H2O + 2OH- + H2S
This generates hydrogen sulfide, and is an ACID NEUTRALIZING reaction, generating 2 hydroxide, OH- ions.

The energy yield for bacteria using sulfate as terminal electron acceptor for oxidation of hydrogen is small. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But the exothermic yield of sulfate reduction is still LARGE compared to methanogenesis using carbon dioxide, the weakest terminal electron acceptor anyone can use.

In theory, we could put hydrogen oxidizing, sulfate reducing bacteria in cow guts and add a lot of sulfate ion to their feed. They could outcompete the methanogens and reduce methane emissions. But then the cow belches would smell like egg farts. Belching hydrogen sulfide near a spark could also turn a cow into a fire breathing dragon. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to cattle, so sulfate reducers may not be the best candidates to reduce cow gas emissions.

And for the most fun, let's introduce two different species of phosphorus reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate, PO4(3-) ion to the feed. The first bacteria reduces phosphorus(V) phosphate, PO4(3-) to phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-). The second bacteria reduces phosphorus(III) phosphite, PO3(3-) to phosphine, H3P.

Now the cows will belch phosphine, H3P. Now your cow becomes a fire breathing dragon WITHOUT need for a nearby spark. Phosphine ignites spontaneously upon contact with 21% O2 in the atmosphere.

Methanogenesis may only be "slightly exothermic", but it releases enough energy to supply methanogenic archaea bacteria with ALL their metabolic energy needs.

But the weakness of their terminal electron acceptor is also their weakness in competition with ANYONE ELSE who can use a better terminal electron acceptor, and such terminal electron acceptor is present and available for use to oxidize hydrogen.

Multiple approaches show great promise to have our beef and milk without cow gas emissions. Or at least with a whole lot LESS of them.

One approach is to optimize the chemical composition of the cattle feed for the diet that produces the fewest methane belches. Such as inclusion of some vegetation rich in tannins (polyphenols).

Another approach highlighted in recent news reports include potential genetic engineering of bacteria already found in cow guts to minimize methanogenesis.

And here, the basic biogeochemistry of ruminant digestion is discussed to include selective breeding of anaerobic bacteria that could out compete methanogenic archaea bacteria in cow guts for available hydrogen, given an appropriate available terminal electron acceptor.

The list of minerals that bacteria can use as terminal electron acceptors under low oxygen conditions is long and ancient. In many cases this kind of anaerobic respiration is still performed by archaea bacteria evolved long before any free oxygen was present in the air or water.

So far, "oxidant" terminal electron acceptors mentioned have been oxygen, [b]carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and phosphite. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy.

The list goes on.

Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Selenate, arsenate, borate, molybdate, vanadate, cobaltate... and that is only a partial list of anions that can be used as terminal electron acceptors for oxidation reactions carried out by bacteria.

In every case, an appropriate hydrogen oxidizing bacteria could be coupled to the terminal electron acceptor added to the cattle feed.

Potential disadvantages of one versus the other include the risk of acting as oxidants before arriving to where the methanogens live in cow guts, altering redox conditions, or altering pH conditions in a manner harmful to proper digestion.

In almost all cases of the terminal electron acceptors listed, the (reduced) chemical products can be toxic at high enough concentration.

If only a small amount is required to effectively prevent methanogenic archaea bacteria from causing significant methane emissions, the hydrogen sulfide, nitrite, ferrous iron(II), manganese(II), etc, might be produced at concentrations harmless to the cattle.

Hey retard, cows eat grass, do you want that banned too?

More than 2200 views.

They can't ALL be scientifically illiterate Internet trolls.

The idea is to keep getting beef and milk without so many methane emissions.

The point being made is we can get even MORE beef and milk from the same amount of feed, if all those feed calories aren't wasted as methane emissions.

The only thing I want "banned" is the troll who drives decent folks away...

Nope because if cows do not eat the grass, it decays releasing methane anyway

True story along with your mental issues

Apparently, you have been misinformed about how the overwhelming majority of decaying grass in the world gets transformed.

Carbon dioxide, not methane, is the product of aerobic decomposition.

Methane will only form if the grass decomposes under very low oxygen conditions.

Perhaps you are aware of some common situation where uneaten grass decays into methane. Unless it gets flooded. Most grass doesn't grow or decompose under waterlogged conditions.

Swan, you have no actual interest in the topic.

Are you really so bored, lonely, or whatever that it is good use of your time to write inane comments about subjects you know or care nothing about?

Actually I am quite well informed. The actual amount of methane released from a single blade of grass wouldn't change if it was just left to decompose, or if it was eaten by a cow and then digested by the bacteria in their gut.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/mar-2-2019-the-goodness-paradox-secrets-in-poop-converting-carbon-to-coal-and-more-1.5037008/do-cows-produce-more-methane-than-rotting-grass-1.5037019

You may now resume fingerpainting

Swan:
Hey retard, cows eat grass, do you want that banned too?

Swan wrote:
Do you believe that copy and pasting nonsense makes you brighter?

It doesn't

PS. No human will ever read the garbage that you pasted

Deal with it

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
Do you believe that copy and pasting nonsense makes you brighter?

It doesn't

PS. No human will ever read the garbage that you pasted

Deal with it

2370 "views" of this garbage.

And I'm not even EXPECTING someone with advanced scientific training to have viewed it yet.

Think of it, Swan.

The garbage you posted can be seen for years to come.

Someone can look up your posts as a kind of library, long after you have accomplished your immediate mission and no longer post at climate-debate.com

Did you ever figure out how WRONG you got it about how grass is gonna decay into methane whether cows eat it or not?

No, you probably missed the part about aerobic decomposition producing CARBON DIOXIDE, rather than methane.

How could you have ever learned something like that, anyway?

I'm sure you will continue to offer your valuable insights about cow gas.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Who ELSE is willing to rise to the challenge and write that sentence "Carbonate is not a chemical" HUNDREDS OF TIMES for the cause?"

Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical

There, 200 times. I wish I had thought of simply copy-pasting it all instead of typing each and every letter, but it did me good to reflect on the wisdom of the wisdom.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Who ELSE is willing to rise to the challenge and write that sentence "Carbonate is not a chemical" HUNDREDS OF TIMES for the cause?"

Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical - Carbonate is not a chemical

There, 200 times. I wish I had thought of simply copy-pasting it all instead of typing each and every letter, but it did me good to reflect on the wisdom of the wisdom.

You seem to be implying that carbonate is not a chemical.

Hmmm...

Does this definitional dilemma prevent carbonate ion from acting as a pH buffer in sea water?

That appears to be the conclusion.

Most often when chemists use the term "carbonate" by itself (i.e. not part of the name of a compound such as calcium carbonate) in a sentence, it is a reference to the carbonate ION, CO3(2-).

For example, when they say that there is less bioavailable carbonate in sea water due to ocean acidification, they are referring to the carbonate ION, CO3(2-).

When a water analysis report lists measured values for "carbonate alkalinity", it is the acid neutralizing (pH buffering) capacity provided by carbonate ION.

A separate measure of "bicarbonate alkalinity" is the acid neutralizing capacity supplied by bicarbonate IONS. Even if bicarbonate is not a "chemical".

Does the "carbonate is not a chemical" chant facilitate meditation or prayer?

It gets repeated a lot at this website. It must be important in some way. To someone. Carbonate is not a chemical. I guess.

So what?

Swan wrote:
A great writer can make their point in one sentence.

You are not a great writer.

But you copy and paste nonsense very well.

CIAO

Swan wrote:
A great writer can make their point in one sentence.

You are not a great writer.

But you copy and paste nonsense very well.

CIAO

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
A great writer can make their point in one sentence.

You are not a great writer.

But you copy and paste nonsense very well.

CIAO

I apologize for not answering your question sooner.

What is the pH inside the rumen, one of the cow's stomachs, where fermentation and methanogenesis occurs?

The pH inside the cow's rumen stomach ranges from pH 5.5 to pH 6.9.

Cows with more carbs in their diet, the corn-fed types, have lower pH in their rumens.

You have to be careful when you take a sample of the fermenting stuff in the rumen if you want to get an accurate measure of pH.

Upon contact with oxygen, the pH will begin to rise.

As organic anion fermentation products (acetate, pyruvate, etc.) are aerobically oxidized, they generate bicarbonate ion, HCO3-

Acetate from vinegar (acetic acid), for example:

CH3COO- + 2O2 = CO2 + HCO3- + H2O

The fermentation products of low oxygen conditions are readily oxidized under aerobic conditions. Generating acid-neutralizing bicarbonate ions in the process.

However, Swan is correct to point out that these organic anions could be oxidized by virtually any terminal electron acceptor strong enough to oxidize methane.

Carbon dioxide is the weakest terminal electron acceptor that can oxidize hydrogen, as occurs during methanogenesis.

Carbon dioxide cannot be used as terminal electron acceptor for methane oxidation.

The risk of introducing an appropriate bacteria to remove methane from cow guts is that the terminal electron acceptor it would require could be used by other bacteria to instead consume organic compounds other than methane.

The "Holy Grail" for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas methane emissions might not be a vaccine or a genetically engineered variant of a bacteria already found in the rumen of our bovine friends.

The trick might be to find a terminal electron acceptor strong enough to be competitive against carbon dioxide for HYDROGEN oxidation, enabling an entirely new introduced bacteria to outcompete methanogens for available hydrogen. Strong enough to oxidize hydrogen for a bigger payoff than methanogenesis, but too weak to use to oxidize organic carbon.

Somewhere between carbon dioxide and sulfate.

I need to look up whether or not anyone has been measuring HYDROGEN in cow belches during those many experiments with red seaweed or tannin-rich grass and other dietary alterations.

Does the reduced "feed intake" occur because hydrogen gas is being lost, rather than oxidized by bacteria whose biomass is a major part of the cow's nutrition?

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
A great writer can make their point in one sentence.

You are not a great writer.

But you copy and paste nonsense very well.

CIAO

I apologize for not answering your question sooner.

What is the pH inside the rumen, one of the cow's stomachs, where fermentation and methanogenesis occurs?

The pH inside the cow's rumen stomach ranges from pH 5.5 to pH 6.9.

Cows with more carbs in their diet, the corn-fed types, have lower pH in their rumens.

You have to be careful when you take a sample of the fermenting stuff in the rumen if you want to get an accurate measure of pH.

Upon contact with oxygen, the pH will begin to rise.

As organic anion fermentation products (acetate, pyruvate, etc.) are aerobically oxidized, they generate bicarbonate ion, HCO3-

Acetate from vinegar (acetic acid), for example:

CH3COO- + 2O2 = CO2 + HCO3- + H2O

The fermentation products of low oxygen conditions are readily oxidized under aerobic conditions. Generating acid-neutralizing bicarbonate ions in the process.

However, Swan is correct to point out that these organic anions could be oxidized by virtually any terminal electron acceptor strong enough to oxidize methane.

Carbon dioxide is the weakest terminal electron acceptor that can oxidize hydrogen, as occurs during methanogenesis.

Carbon dioxide cannot be used as terminal electron acceptor for methane oxidation.

The risk of introducing an appropriate bacteria to remove methane from cow guts is that the terminal electron acceptor it would require could be used by other bacteria to instead consume organic compounds other than methane.

The "Holy Grail" for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas methane emissions might not be a vaccine or a genetically engineered variant of a bacteria already found in the rumen of our bovine friends.

The trick might be to find a terminal electron acceptor strong enough to be competitive against carbon dioxide for HYDROGEN oxidation, enabling an entirely new introduced bacteria to outcompete methanogens for available hydrogen. Strong enough to oxidize hydrogen for a bigger payoff than methanogenesis, but too weak to use to oxidize organic carbon.

Somewhere between carbon dioxide and sulfate.

I need to look up whether or not anyone has been measuring HYDROGEN in cow belches during those many experiments with red seaweed or tannin-rich grass and other dietary alterations.

Does the reduced "feed intake" occur because hydrogen gas is being lost, rather than oxidized by bacteria whose biomass is a major part of the cow's nutrition?

Is it true that when the doctor shined the light in your ear that it came out the other side?

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
A great writer can make their point in one sentence.

You are not a great writer.

But you copy and paste nonsense very well.

CIAO

I apologize for not answering your question sooner.

What is the pH inside the rumen, one of the cow's stomachs, where fermentation and methanogenesis occurs?

The pH inside the cow's rumen stomach ranges from pH 5.5 to pH 6.9.

Cows with more carbs in their diet, the corn-fed types, have lower pH in their rumens.

You have to be careful when you take a sample of the fermenting stuff in the rumen if you want to get an accurate measure of pH.

Upon contact with oxygen, the pH will begin to rise.

As organic anion fermentation products (acetate, pyruvate, etc.) are aerobically oxidized, they generate bicarbonate ion, HCO3-

Acetate from vinegar (acetic acid), for example:

CH3COO- + 2O2 = CO2 + HCO3- + H2O

The fermentation products of low oxygen conditions are readily oxidized under aerobic conditions. Generating acid-neutralizing bicarbonate ions in the process.

However, Swan is correct to point out that these organic anions could be oxidized by virtually any terminal electron acceptor strong enough to oxidize methane.

Carbon dioxide is the weakest terminal electron acceptor that can oxidize hydrogen, as occurs during methanogenesis.

Carbon dioxide cannot be used as terminal electron acceptor for methane oxidation.

The risk of introducing an appropriate bacteria to remove methane from cow guts is that the terminal electron acceptor it would require could be used by other bacteria to instead consume organic compounds other than methane.

The "Holy Grail" for bioengineering a reduction of cow gas methane emissions might not be a vaccine or a genetically engineered variant of a bacteria already found in the rumen of our bovine friends.

The trick might be to find a terminal electron acceptor strong enough to be competitive against carbon dioxide for HYDROGEN oxidation, enabling an entirely new introduced bacteria to outcompete methanogens for available hydrogen. Strong enough to oxidize hydrogen for a bigger payoff than methanogenesis, but too weak to use to oxidize organic carbon.

Somewhere between carbon dioxide and sulfate.

I need to look up whether or not anyone has been measuring HYDROGEN in cow belches during those many experiments with red seaweed or tannin-rich grass and other dietary alterations.

Does the reduced "feed intake" occur because hydrogen gas is being lost, rather than oxidized by bacteria whose biomass is a major part of the cow's nutrition?

Is it true that when the doctor shined the light in your ear that it came out the other side?

Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Still infatuated with cow farts?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Still infatuated with cow farts?

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Still infatuated with cow farts?

Are you still pretending to be some kind of "chemist"?

Perhaps you are incapable of learning which end of the cow emits methane due to some kind of reverse learning disability.

The same way you get the THERMODYNAMICS backwards, as I assume you continue to insist that methanogenesis is ENDOTHERMIC:

4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + EXOTHERMIC ENERGY YIELD (albeit a small one)

Yup. You are DEFINITELY a real "chemist". Posting your stinky brain... belches.

Brain fart. Climate cannot change. Brain fart. You are no chemist. Brain fart. There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'. Brain fart. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Brain fart. Water itself is a buffer for acid. Brain fart. Dilution is buffering, moron. Brain fart. Methanogenesis is endothermic. Brain fart. Stop spamming. Brain fart.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Still infatuated with cow farts?

Are you still pretending to be some kind of "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps you are incapable of learning which end of the cow emits methane due to some kind of reverse learning disability.

Im a BM wrote:
The same way you get the THERMODYNAMICS backwards,

Im a BM wrote:
as I assume you continue to insist that methanogenesis is ENDOTHERMIC:

Im a BM wrote:
Yup. You are DEFINITELY a real "chemist". Posting your stinky brain... belches.
Brain fart. Climate cannot change. Brain fart. You are no chemist. Brain fart. There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'. Brain fart. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Brain fart. Water itself is a buffer for acid. Brain fart. Dilution is buffering, moron. Brain fart. Methanogenesis is endothermic. Brain fart. Stop spamming. Brain fart.

Im a BM wrote:
Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

Im a BM wrote:

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan is right and I was wrong.

I naively assumed that methanogens in the cow's rumen were so efficient at capturing the hydrogen gas, it would only be present at trace concentrations in cow gas belches.

I will follow Swan's wise advise and look up the actual data in the studies to see how much the relative concentration of the two gases varies.

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Still infatuated with cow farts?

Are you still pretending to be some kind of "chemist"?

Perhaps you are incapable of learning which end of the cow emits methane due to some kind of reverse learning disability.

The same way you get the THERMODYNAMICS backwards, as I assume you continue to insist that methanogenesis is ENDOTHERMIC:

4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + EXOTHERMIC ENERGY YIELD (albeit a small one)

Yup. You are DEFINITELY a real "chemist". Posting your stinky brain... belches.

Brain fart. Climate cannot change. Brain fart. You are no chemist. Brain fart. There is no such thing as 'alkalinity'. Brain fart. There is no such thing as biogeochemistry. Brain fart. Water itself is a buffer for acid. Brain fart. Dilution is buffering, moron. Brain fart. Methanogenesis is endothermic. Brain fart. Stop spamming. Brain fart.

Swan wrote:
The climate is always changing just like the Earth is always changing. The Earth does not need your approval to change. In fact if you jump off a building today the Earth will not even notice you nor will it ever notice any of your post here. You are irrelevant and you cannot change this

Im a BM wrote:

What is the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of cow gas under "normal" conditions?

If we don't mind wasting feed as the price for reducing methane emissions, maybe the best way to go is to simply minimize the methane-to-hydrogen ratio of bovine belches.

It would certainly provide the most options to get rapid results.

I happen to consume a LOT of milk, and a moderate amount of beef.

Im a BM wrote:
I'd like to be able to continue to do so with as little contribution as possible to climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
Most of what I have posted on this thread is to demonstrate principles of biogeochemistry that relate to greenhouse gas emission or sequestration.

Im a BM wrote:
If we view the cow as a factory that produces milk and beef when given food and water, it is a chemical engineering challenge to reduce that factory's emission of methane to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
If we don't have to be concerned about the cow's survival as a living organism, we could selectively breed a bacteria to turn hydrogen into METHANOL instead of methane in the cow's rumen. Cow gas problem solved. But, methanol is toxic to cows and all the microorganisms inside them, even at the lowest concentration.

It is probably also the case that any OTHER chemical engineering alteration that reduces the emission of methane would do so at the expense of producing a toxic product. Introducing an additional terminal electron acceptor to the cow's diet (nitrate, ferric iron, sulfate, manganese[IV], etc.) and a new bacteria to capture the hydrogen or methane in the cow's rumen.. all make toxic products.

Perhaps it is just a theoretical exercise in order to teach biogeochemistry that applies to emission or sequestration of greenhouse gases in aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems.

But I'm still going to see if I can find data to verify if the methane-to-hydrogen ratio in cow gas is a variable that changes in any of the experiments.

There may still be a place for a chemical engineer to offer some suggestions.

Im a BM wrote:

If corn fed cows are the ones with the lowest pH in their rumens, closer to 5.5 than 6.9, this influences the availability of carbon dioxide as a reactant for methanogenesis.

Im a BM wrote:
What if it is CO2 availability, rather than the availability of hydrogen, that naturally limits methane emissions in grass fed cows?

Im a BM wrote:
The higher pH of their rumens sequesters some of the carbon dioxide into bicarbonate ions, making it less available for methanogenesis.

Im a BM wrote:
IFF cow's are belching out a lot of hydrogen because there isn't enough carbon dioxide in their rumens to turn it ALL into methane...

Im a BM wrote:
We could feed the cows in a way to give them less acid stomachs.

Im a BM wrote:
Let the inorganic carbon be present as bicarbonate ion, and don't drive it out of solution as carbon dioxide, by acidifying it.

Im a BM wrote:
So, now I just need to look up the research and see if it is possible that it is CARBON DIOXIDE that limits methanogenesis, leaving a surplus of unoxidized hydrogen remaining in the cow gas.

Im a BM wrote:
So, now I see a claim that cow gas is methane, lesser amount of carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen sulfide, H2S.

Im a BM wrote:
According to THAT source, there is no surplus hydrogen left behind, and plenty of leftover carbon dioxide.

Traces of hydrogen sulfide in cow gas means that sulfate reduction is occurring to oxidize some of the hydrogen.

Im a BM wrote:
It looks like there is no surplus hydrogen being belched, and methanogenesis is NOT limited by the availability of carbon dioxide gas in cattle rumens.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
The climate is always changing just like the Earth is always changing. The Earth does not need your approval to change. In fact if you jump off a building today the Earth will not even notice you nor will it ever notice any of your post here. You are irrelevant and you cannot change this

Climate cannot change.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
The climate is always changing just like the Earth is always changing. The Earth does not need your approval to change. In fact if you jump off a building today the Earth will not even notice you nor will it ever notice any of your post here. You are irrelevant and you cannot change this

Climate cannot change.

What mechanism prevents the Earth from changing?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
The climate is always changing just like the Earth is always changing. The Earth does not need your approval to change. In fact if you jump off a building today the Earth will not even notice you nor will it ever notice any of your post here. You are irrelevant and you cannot change this

Climate cannot change.

What mechanism prevents the Earth from changing?

Redefinition fallacy (climate<->Earth).