20-01-2025 00:41 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
This thread really IS about "cow gas" (methane), belched out by cattle due to methanogenic archaea bacteria in their guts. It's about how to engineer the microbiological ecosystem where a variety of different species engage in a feeding frenzy under very low oxygen conditions. Please scroll up to the top of this page for more about this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Explained: Something is NOT Something Else The revolutionary, paradigm-shifting scientific insights of Into the Night surely warrant entirely new textbooks for the chemistry classes in school. With so many revisions required, such as REDEFINING pH to now be a mysterious "ratio", and no longer pH = -log[H+]... It's going to take a lot of pages to cover it all.. exothermic is now endothermic, lignin is a carbohydrate, sulfate cannot be reduced... Perhaps a much shorter publication can be put together without all the chemistry details. You could say a lot more with a lot less using a BIG PICTURE approach. Then instead of "RQAA", you could cite your own publication. If I could pitch a title for you... "Science Explained: Something is NOT something else." The NEWEST EDITION of the Standard Chemistry Textbook. New and improved, the wisdom of Into the Night has been incorporated. They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH = -log[H+] They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that pH is a RATIO. They have removed the INCORRECT definition of pH buffering as the action of solutes that minimize pH change upon addition of acid or base. They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that DILUTION is buffering. They have removed all INCORRECT references to "organic carbon" and "organic nitrogen" as chemical compounds that contain carbon atoms in chemically reduced oxidation state. Such as the TENS OF THOUSANDS of chemical compounds that are the subject of ORGANIC CHEMISTRY. They have replaced it with the explanation that there is no such thing as organic carbon or organic nitrogen. The presence of these meaningless buzzwords in any sentence nullifies its validity. They have removed INCORRECT references to "inorganic carbon" as chemical compounds that contain carbon atoms in chemically OXIDIZED oxidation state - a very short list that includes carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. This has been replaced with the authoritative explanation that there is NO SUCH THING as "inorganic carbon". A meaningless buzzword that transforms any sentence into non science gibber babble which we do not hear. They have removed the INCORRECT definition of "carbohydrate" = "saccharide" They have replaced it with the CORRECT definition that a carbohydrate is lignin, polyphenol, vegetable oil, or any other non-protein organic compound synthesized by a plant. They have removed the INCORRECT use of terms "ferrous iron" or "zero valent iron, which are actually just meaningless buzzwords. They have been replaced with the CORRECT definition that ALL iron is "ferric", because the symbol for the element is Fe. They have removed the INCORRECT use of the term "proton" as a reference to hydrogen ions. This has been replaced by the CORRECT assertion that "Hydrogen is not a proton.", which nullifies the validity of any sentence in which the term "proton" is used to refer to H+ The have removed INCORRECT references to "ferrous iron" or "zero valent iron". They have been replaced with the CORRECT assertion that ALL iron is "ferric" iron because the element symbol for iron is Fe. They have removed INCORRECT references to "sulfate reduction" or "nitrate reduction" carried out by bacteria under low oxygen conditions, during which they use sulfate or nitrate as terminal electron acceptors. They have been replaced with the CORRECT explanation that nitrate cannot be reduced and sulfate cannot be reduced. This nullifies the validity of any sentence including the terms "sulfate reduction" or "nitrate reduction" They have removed the INCORRECT use of the words "carbonate" "fluoride" and all other terms that can refer to anions without naming an entire chemical compound. They have added a CORRECT index to identify all the major NOT a chemicals as meaningless buzzwords which nullify the validity of any sentence they are associated with. You cannot buffer against pH change with a buzzword. They have radically revised the thermodynamics section and removed the INCORRECT definition of "endothermic" chemical reactions. They have corrected it to a new definition under which microbial methanogenesis carried out by archaea bacteria, during which 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O as they combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to make methane is ENDOTHERMIC. Explaining how they get all their metabolic energy. I've only scratched the surface of all the important revisions that the new chemistry textbook will include when the genius of Into the Night is included. But wait! It gets even BETTER. Phantom Inertial Gases (PIGs) are now recognized as major players in atmospheric thermodynamics. They're taking all the bullshit about "greenhouse gases" out of the chemistry textbooks. It was really PIGs that created the illusion of greenhouse effect. Into the Night's genius hypothesis based on truly brilliant insight into the behavior of PIGs has DEBUNKED all that. If his knowledge of water chemistry hasn't already dazzled you, wait until I get to quote everyone about ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. |
20-01-2025 03:29 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy (methanogenic). Im a BM wrote: I guess you don't know what the top is. Im a BM wrote: Chemistry is not a book. Chemistry is not a school. Im a BM wrote: Nothing has been redefined. You just don't know what pH is. Im a BM wrote: Never said any such thing. Mantra 30a. Im a BM wrote: It is. Im a BM wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
21-01-2025 04:42 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Cow fart! |
22-01-2025 21:49 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
COW GAS and Fire Breathing Dragons In the post directly below this, cow gas is discussed in the context of applied microbiology to reduce the amount of hydrogen that gets transformed into methane by methanogenic bacteria in ruminant guts. However, for more background gases generated in cow guts, and to drive home the fact that cattle belch methane out of their MOUTHS, rather than than the orifice most folks seem to think "gas" implies. The myth of the fire breathing dragon. Cows belch methane. Methane is flammable. With some kind of spark present, the cows burp could light up. Seen at night in the distance, such a thing would appear to be a fire breathing SOMETHING. However, this just doesn't happen much. We've had a lot of cows around for a long time, and if their belches were flaming somewhere... Somebody would have caught it on camera by now. The origin of the fire dragon myth may yet have been a belching cow, but it would have taken more than just methane to make it happen. And it theoretically very plausible that this could have happened by having the explosively flammable gas PHOSPHINE present along with all the methane in the cow belch. Start with the methane. Cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions where a variety of different microorganisms engage in a feeding frenzy. Some of those microorganisms produce hydrogen gas. That hydrogen gas is then used by methanogenic bacteria to make methane. H2 + CO2 = CH4 The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make methane. These bacteria are among the oldest line of living organisms on earth. Fire breathing dragon? If a cow were to inadvertently eat something exceptionally rich in phosphate, with right kind of anaerobic bacteria present (phosphate reducers), phosphine gas could be produced in the cow guts. Phosphate, P(V) PO4(3-) gets reduced to phosphite, P(III) PO3(3-) Phosphite can be further reduced to phosphine PO3(3-) P(III) becomes H3P P(zero) Phosphine, H3P, is extremely flammable and can spontaneously ignite upon contact with 21% oxygen atmosphere. With some phosphine, H3P, to set off the methane, CH4, in the cow's belch... There is a very real possibility that some cow somewhere may have provided the sight that inspired the myth. And now, there is a very real possibility that applied microbiology will tip the scales of microbiological ecology in cow guts, so that methanogenic bacteria don't make so much methane out of hydrogen. |
22-01-2025 21:50 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
The post directly above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS. This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma. No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission. And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it. If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no". If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas". In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere. Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable. ---------- COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions. August 25, 2024 The Washington Post Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright ---------------------------------------------------------- COW GAS! The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion. All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!) Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame. Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. Why do cows emit methane? Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur. Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas. Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right? But that's where some different little critters some in. Methanogenic bacteria. Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria. They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane. So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows. I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications. But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts. One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it. Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process. Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions. ------------------------------ The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission. So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work. If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition. Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering. If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants. On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force. Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed. A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen. As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again. This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere. Additional thoughts: My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people. WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming. AND with an important caveat. We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle. If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream. And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria. |
23-01-2025 00:58 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote: Still infatuated with cow farts, eh? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
23-01-2025 02:21 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Oh, yeah? Maybe YOU are a cow fart! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Too funny. LOL. ROTFLOL, in fact. Get it? You mocked me about discussing "cow farts", perhaps because you don't know how to look up the definition of "belch". More likely you sort of figured out which end of the cow the gas comes out of, but WHO CAN RESIST the opportunity to bring it back to FARTS? And making everyone suspect that I'm a fart fetishist in an AWESOME BURN. But then I came back and called YOU a cow fart! And it was REALLY FUNNY! And, once again, I WIN! IN YOUR FACE, LOSER! |
04-02-2025 20:52 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
COW GAS and Fire Breathing Dragons In the post directly below this, cow gas is discussed in the context of applied microbiology to reduce the amount of hydrogen that gets transformed into methane by methanogenic bacteria in ruminant guts. However, for more background gases generated in cow guts, and to drive home the fact that cattle belch methane out of their MOUTHS, rather than than the orifice most folks seem to think "gas" implies. The myth of the fire breathing dragon. Cows belch methane. Methane is flammable. With some kind of spark present, the cows burp could light up. Seen at night in the distance, such a thing would appear to be a fire breathing SOMETHING. However, this just doesn't happen much. We've had a lot of cows around for a long time, and if their belches were flaming somewhere... Somebody would have caught it on camera by now. The origin of the fire dragon myth may yet have been a belching cow, but it would have taken more than just methane to make it happen. And it theoretically very plausible that this could have happened by having the explosively flammable gas PHOSPHINE present along with all the methane in the cow belch. Start with the methane. Cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions where a variety of different microorganisms engage in a feeding frenzy. Some of those microorganisms produce hydrogen gas. That hydrogen gas is then used by methanogenic bacteria to make methane. H2 + CO2 = CH4 The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make methane. These bacteria are among the oldest line of living organisms on earth. Fire breathing dragon? If a cow were to inadvertently eat something exceptionally rich in phosphate, with right kind of anaerobic bacteria present (phosphate reducers), phosphine gas could be produced in the cow guts. Phosphate, P(V) PO4(3-) gets reduced to phosphite, P(III) PO3(3-) Phosphite can be further reduced to phosphine PO3(3-) P(III) becomes H3P P(zero) Phosphine, H3P, is extremely flammable and can spontaneously ignite upon contact with 21% oxygen atmosphere. With some phosphine, H3P, to set off the methane, CH4, in the cow's belch... There is a very real possibility that some cow somewhere may have provided the sight that inspired the myth. And now, there is a very real possibility that applied microbiology will tip the scales of microbiological ecology in cow guts, so that methanogenic bacteria don't make so much methane out of hydrogen. |
04-02-2025 20:54 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
The post directly above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS. This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma. No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission. And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it. If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no". If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas". In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere. Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable. ---------- COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions. August 25, 2024 The Washington Post Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright ---------------------------------------------------------- COW GAS! The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion. All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!) Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame. Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. Why do cows emit methane? Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur. Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas. Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right? But that's where some different little critters some in. Methanogenic bacteria. Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria. They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane. So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows. I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications. But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts. One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it. Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process. Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions. ------------------------------ The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission. So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work. If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition. Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering. If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants. On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force. Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed. A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen. As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again. This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere. Additional thoughts: My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people. WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming. AND with an important caveat. We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle. If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream. And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria. |
04-02-2025 21:08 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
Carbon dioxide (CO2) as terminal electron acceptor to oxidize hydrogen (H2) generated by microorganisms in cow guts. If we wish to understand how we can intervene to engineer the microbiological ecology of cow guts to reduce the amount of methane (CH4) that cattle belch, which now accounts for about one third of all anthropogenic methane emissions... The problem is what happens to the hydrogen generated by microorganisms under the extreme low oxygen, chemically reducing conditions of cattle guts. Methanogenic archaea bacteria can combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce methane gas, acquiring all their metabolic energy from this slightly exothermic reaction. Carbon dioxide is a very weak terminal electron acceptor for hydrogen oxidation. So, the scientists are trying to figure out how to either get less hydrogen gas generated in the cow guts to form methane, or get that hydrogen to oxidize with a different terminal electron acceptor other than carbon dioxide. The two posts directly above this include much more information about this. |
04-02-2025 23:49 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote: Why are you so infatuated with cow farts? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
04-02-2025 23:56 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Making up numbers and using them as data is a fallacy, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Guts aren't chemically reduced. Im a BM wrote: An endothermic reaction. Not spontaneous. Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
05-02-2025 00:00 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Making up numbers and using them as data is a fallacy, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Guts aren't chemically reduced. Im a BM wrote: An endothermic reaction. Not spontaneous. Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Im a BM wrote: Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
05-02-2025 00:10 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
ANYONE can do a simple reality check to see if Into the Night knows ANYTHING about science. "Carbon dioxide is not oxygen" - Into the Night Google: Is carbon dioxide oxygen? Even GOOGLE agrees with Into the Night about this particular point of science. "There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'" - Into the Night Google: "Is there such a thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'?" This time GOOGLE does NOT agree with Into the Night. One of them must be wrong. 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." OBVIOUSLY, Into the Night has a MUCH better track record than GOOGLE for knowing when there is "no such thing" as some buzzword that is being used by some Marxist warmazombie follower of the Church of Global Warming. "You are a scientifically illiterate moron." - IBdaMann "You are describing yourself." - Into the Night Hey, at least he figured out that carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Sounds like a pretty competent chemist to me! Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
05-02-2025 05:12 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
ANYONE can do a simple reality check to see if Into the Night knows ANYTHING about science. "Carbon dioxide is not oxygen" - Into the Night Google: Is carbon dioxide oxygen? Even GOOGLE agrees with Into the Night about this particular point of science. "There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'" - Into the Night Google: "Is there such a thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'?" This time GOOGLE does NOT agree with Into the Night. One of them must be wrong. 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." OBVIOUSLY, Into the Night has a MUCH better track record than GOOGLE for knowing when there is "no such thing" as some buzzword that is being used by some Marxist warmazombie follower of the Church of Global Warming. "You are a scientifically illiterate moron." - IBdaMann "You are describing yourself." - Into the Night Hey, at least he figured out that carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Sounds like a pretty competent chemist to me! 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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield 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. 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 to nitrogen gas (denitrification by denitrifying bacteria) or reduce nitrate to ammonium (dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonia, DNRA). This would give a relatively large energy yield, but not nearly as large as achieved using oxygen as terminal electron acceptor. If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or iron(III), Fe3+ ferric ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Much less than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen! If there were sulfate ions, SO4(2-) in the cow guts, bacteria could use it as terminal electron acceptor for a small energy yield from hydrogen oxidation. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But LARGE compared to carbon dioxide, the weakest terminal electron acceptor anyone can use. 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. Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
05-02-2025 19:53 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
ANYONE can do a simple reality check to see if Into the Night knows ANYTHING about science. "Carbon dioxide is not oxygen" - Into the Night Google: Is carbon dioxide oxygen? Even GOOGLE agrees with Into the Night about this particular point of science. "There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'" - Into the Night Google: "Is there such a thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'?" This time GOOGLE does NOT agree with Into the Night. One of them must be wrong. 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." OBVIOUSLY, Into the Night has a MUCH better track record than GOOGLE for knowing when there is "no such thing" as some buzzword that is being used by some Marxist warmazombie follower of the Church of Global Warming. "You are a scientifically illiterate moron." - IBdaMann "You are describing yourself." - Into the Night Hey, at least he figured out that carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Sounds like a pretty competent chemist to me! 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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield (methanogenesis) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield (hydrogen combustion) 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. 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. 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". If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or iron(III), Fe3+ ferric ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Much less than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen! Adding oxidized manganese or iron 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. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But LARGE compared to 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. And for the most fun, let's introduce a phosphate reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate ion to the feed. 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. Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: No, YOU stop spamming! Edited on 05-02-2025 20:02 |
06-02-2025 05:00 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy ('reality'). Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy ('terminal electron acceptor'). Im a BM wrote: I certainly do! Im a BM wrote: Nitrate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Nitrate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Nitrate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Not possible. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy. ...deleted remaining spam... [/quote] Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
06-02-2025 17:57 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
COW GAS and Fire Breathing Dragons In the post directly below this, cow gas is discussed in the context of applied microbiology to reduce the amount of hydrogen that gets transformed into methane by methanogenic bacteria in ruminant guts. However, for more background gases generated in cow guts, and to drive home the fact that cattle belch methane out of their MOUTHS, rather than than the orifice most folks seem to think "gas" implies. The myth of the fire breathing dragon. Cows belch methane. Methane is flammable. With some kind of spark present, the cows burp could light up. Seen at night in the distance, such a thing would appear to be a fire breathing SOMETHING. However, this just doesn't happen much. We've had a lot of cows around for a long time, and if their belches were flaming somewhere... Somebody would have caught it on camera by now. The origin of the fire dragon myth may yet have been a belching cow, but it would have taken more than just methane to make it happen. And it theoretically very plausible that this could have happened by having the explosively flammable gas PHOSPHINE present along with all the methane in the cow belch. Start with the methane. Cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions where a variety of different microorganisms engage in a feeding frenzy. Some of those microorganisms produce hydrogen gas. That hydrogen gas is then used by methanogenic bacteria to make methane. H2 + CO2 = CH4 The hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make methane. These bacteria are among the oldest line of living organisms on earth. Fire breathing dragon? If a cow were to inadvertently eat something exceptionally rich in phosphate, with right kind of anaerobic bacteria present (phosphate reducers), phosphine gas could be produced in the cow guts. Phosphate, P(V) PO4(3-) gets reduced to phosphite, P(III) PO3(3-) Phosphite can be further reduced to phosphine PO3(3-) P(III) becomes H3P P(zero) Phosphine, H3P, is extremely flammable and can spontaneously ignite upon contact with 21% oxygen atmosphere. With some phosphine, H3P, to set off the methane, CH4, in the cow's belch... There is a very real possibility that some cow somewhere may have provided the sight that inspired the myth. And now, there is a very real possibility that applied microbiology will tip the scales of microbiological ecology in cow guts, so that methanogenic bacteria don't make so much methane out of hydrogen. |
06-02-2025 17:58 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
The post directly above this is about potential origin of the "Fire Breathing Dragon" myth, based on the potential for both methane and PHOSPHINE to be included in the cow gas that they BELCH from their MOUTHS. This thread is not intended to convince anyone to believe something that is incompatible with their religious dogma. No belief of any kind is required regarding the potential impact of methane in the atmosphere to be able to discuss the SCIENCE of COW GAS emission. And some VERY PROMISING research that could enable us to achieve dramatic reduction in cow gas emissions of methane, WITHOUT reducing the number cows available to emit it. If you are uncomfortable believing that methane might really have the infrared absorption properties to behave as a "greenhouse gas", just say "no". If you have the intellectual curiosity to learn something about cow gas, the microbiological ecology of what happens inside cow guts will be exactly the SAME, whether or not you refuse to believe that methane is a "greenhouse gas". In other words, Thermodenial is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Cow gas doesn't care what you think it does or cannot do in the atmosphere. Rebuttal of the point that is not being made is quixotic, but predictable. ---------- COW GAS, which they belch out their mouths, accounts for about ONE THIRD of all anthropogenic methane emissions. August 25, 2024 The Washington Post Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet. by Shannon Osaka and Emily Wright ---------------------------------------------------------- COW GAS! The dreaded methane emissions from bovine digestion. All day long they belch and belch the stuff. (NOT flatulence!) Indeed, ruminant burping of flammable gas may be the origin of "fire breathing dragon" type myths. A naturally occurring electrical static spark or some other source of ignition as the creature in the distant night burps out a big flame. Gram per gram, methane has 20-30 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. Why do cows emit methane? Well, cow guts create extreme low oxygen conditions that allow microbiological fermentation reactions to occur. Some of those little critters produce hydrogen gas. Okay, so if cows are emitting hydrogen gas, that's not so bad, right? But that's where some different little critters some in. Methanogenic bacteria. Descendants of one of Earth's very oldest line of bacteria. They combine hydrogen gas with carbon dioxide to produce methane. So, a lot of work has already been done looking at how to optimize the composition of the feed to minimize methane emissions from cows. I take pride in having pioneered research into polyphenols for such applications. But the NEWEST twist may be to just tip the scales of the microbiological ecology of what happens inside the cow guts. One approach is to introduce a different guy who is better adapted to catch the hydrogen gas, intercepting it before the methanogens get a shot at it. Another approach is to introduce more of the guys who ferment WITHOUT generating hydrogen gas in the process. Either way, germ warfare could help us cut back on cow gas emissions. ------------------------------ The "radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" referred to in the Washington Post article is mainly in regard to the potential for genetic engineering of microorganisms in cow guts to minimize methane emission. So, this is my personal take on the most promising implications of the work. If the "problem" is that methanogenic bacteria are the microorganisms that are most competitively exploiting available hydrogen in cow guts, then the "solution" could be to help another bacteria "cheat" in the competition. Not every potential solution would involve genetic engineering. If there were a microorganism already evolved that can successfully outcompete methanogens for hydrogen in cow guts, and remain established generation after generation to do so, somebody like it would already be in some ruminant's guts today. And it may be possible they will identify a ruminant species somewhere that does NOT emit methane, to be used as a source of culture for our domestic bovine ruminants. On the other hand, a hydrogen catching bacteria has almost certainly already evolved that could TEMPORARILY outcompete the methanogens, if they were to arrive to the feeding frenzy in force. Rather than try to rely on establishing a population that is as well adapted to live in the cow guts as the methanogens are, we could just keep overwhelming the methanogens by putting large numbers of their competitors in the feed. A whole new innoculum can be in the cow's next meal. The non-methanogenic hydrogen catching bacteria can arrive in force again, outnumbering the methanogens from the get go, and outcompeting them for available hydrogen. As soon as we stopped putting their competitors in the feed, the methanogens would return to dominate the niche and use the hydrogen in the cow guts to make methane again. This would be simple enough to find the right organism that could do it, without creating any FRANKEN bugs or anything. But we would have to keep feeding it to the cows over and over and over again, or they will go back to belching methane gas into the atmosphere. Additional thoughts: My personal utopia dream is that humanity have enough thriving cattle to provide animal protein for many billions of people. WITHOUT contributing a whole lot of methane to the atmosphere, to further aggravate global warming. AND with an important caveat. We should not waste any cropland growing feed for cattle. If cows can eat some of our crop by products that humans can't use anyway, that would be consistent with my utopian dream. And if we have to offer them a "probiotic" treat when the cows come home from grazing, to minimize their methane belches... It would be fine to go ahead and sacrifice some corn and soybeans to give the cows their daily inoculum of non-methanogenic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria. |
06-02-2025 18:08 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
ANYONE can do a simple reality check to see if Into the Night knows ANYTHING about science. "Carbon dioxide is not oxygen" - Into the Night Google: Is carbon dioxide oxygen? Even GOOGLE agrees with Into the Night about this particular point of science. "There is no such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'" - Into the Night Google: "Is there such a thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'?" This time GOOGLE does NOT agree with Into the Night. One of them must be wrong. 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." OBVIOUSLY, Into the Night has a MUCH better track record than GOOGLE for knowing when there is "no such thing" as some buzzword that is being used by some Marxist warmazombie follower of the Church of Global Warming. "You are a scientifically illiterate moron." - IBdaMann "You are describing yourself." - Into the Night Hey, at least he figured out that carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Sounds like a pretty competent chemist to me! 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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield (methanogenesis) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield (hydrogen combustion) 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. 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. 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). If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or iron(III), Fe3+ ferric ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Much less than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen! Adding oxidized manganese or iron 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. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But LARGE compared to 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. And for the most fun, let's introduce a phosphate reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate ion to the feed. 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. |
06-02-2025 22:14 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
Two posts above this one is the reference to the "Scientists may have found a radical solution for making your hamburger less bad for the planet" article, 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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield (methanogenesis) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield (hydrogen combustion) 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. 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. 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). If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or iron(III), Fe3+ ferric ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Much less than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen! Adding oxidized manganese or iron 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. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But LARGE compared to 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. And for the most fun, let's introduce a phosphate reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate ion to the feed. 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. |
08-02-2025 02:48 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
Three posts above this one is the reference to 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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield (methanogenesis) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield (hydrogen combustion) 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. 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. 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). If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or iron(III), Fe3+ ferric ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Much less than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen! Adding oxidized manganese or iron 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. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But LARGE compared to 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. And for the most fun, let's introduce a phosphate reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate ion to the feed. 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 is long. So far, this has mentioned carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and oxygen. 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. Phosphite as well as phosphate. 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, or altering redox 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. 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. |
08-02-2025 10:12 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Im a BM wrote: Still infatuated with cow farts? Im a BM wrote: There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM wrote: Your first mistake. Google is not a source. Im a BM wrote: No such thing as 'terminal electron acceptor'. Im a BM wrote: Redefinition fallacy. Oxygen is not a buzzword. Im a BM wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: No such thing as 'methanogenesis' or 'terminal electron acceptor'. Im a BM wrote: Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Phosphate is not a chemical. Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
09-02-2025 00:20 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
Five posts above this one is the reference to 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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield (methanogenesis) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield (hydrogen combustion) 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. 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. 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). If there were manganese Mn(IV), Mn4+ ions or iron(III), Fe3+ ferric ions in the cow guts, bacteria could use them as terminal electron acceptors to oxidize hydrogen for a moderate energy yield. Much less than oxygen, but much more than carbon dioxide. Because carbon dioxide is not oxygen! Adding oxidized manganese or iron 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. Small compared to oxygen, nitrate, Mn(IV), or Fe(III). But LARGE compared to 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. And for the most fun, let's introduce a phosphate reducing, hydrogen oxidizing bacteria into the cow guts and add a lot of phosphate ion to the feed. 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 is long. So far, this has mentioned carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and oxygen. 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. Phosphite as well as phosphate. 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, or altering redox 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. 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. |
09-02-2025 02:44 | |
Into the Night![]() (22922) |
Stop spamming. |
09-02-2025 03:01 | |
Swan![]() (6117) |
Into the Night wrote: What did spam ever do to you? ![]() I like spam with sunnyside up eggs IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? ![]() Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy ![]() Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
09-02-2025 03:01 | |
Swan![]() (6117) |
Into the Night wrote: What did spam ever do to you? ![]() I like spam with sunnyside up eggs IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? ![]() Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy ![]() Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
09-02-2025 04:36 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield (methanogenesis) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield (hydrogen combustion, or aerobic oxidation of hydrogen by bacteria) 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. 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 is long. So far, this has mentioned carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and oxygen. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy. The list goes on. [b] Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Phosphite as well as phosphate. 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. [/b] 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. |
09-02-2025 08:07 | |
IBdaMann![]() (14939) |
I was wondering if you could be persuaded to discuss science. I have two science questions on my mind regarding the below, one being a biology question and the other being a physics questions.Im a BM wrote: [b]Biology Question:[/b] I read your explanation of why methane comes from cow belches and not cow flatulence. I believe you are mistaken. Isn't the methane coming out of a cow's mouth a gaseous product of the digestive process, e.g. methane, meaning that it is indeed flatulence coming out of the cow's mouth? Physics Question: Why should anyone care about the amount of methane emerging from cows or from any source? |
09-02-2025 20:12 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
This thread has gotten about 2000 "views", yet only four members have posted anything here, and half of them have only posted ONCE. Clearly, the "audience" includes more than a handful of scientifically illiterate Internet "trolls". 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. 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + small exothermic energy yield (methanogenesis) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + large exothermic energy yield (hydrogen combustion, or aerobic oxidation of hydrogen by bacteria) 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. 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 is long. So far, this has mentioned carbon dioxide, sulfate, manganese(IV), ferric iron(III), nitrate, phosphate, and oxygen. Bacteria have evolved to use these as terminal electron acceptors in oxidation-reduction reactions to acquire energy. The list goes on. [b] Sulfite as well as sulfate. Nitrite as well as nitrate. Phosphite as well as phosphate. 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. [/b] 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. |
09-02-2025 20:51 | |
Swan![]() (6117) |
Im a BM wrote: So what is your point? IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? ![]() Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy ![]() Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
09-02-2025 22:11 | |
Im a BM★★★★☆ (1795) |
Swan wrote:Im a BM wrote: "Nitrous oxide has two molecules of nitrogen and one molecule of oxygen." - Swan Before you could begin to understand my point, you would need to learn some basic science. Such as the distinction between atoms and molecules. Troll on, brother! |
10-02-2025 00:50 | |
Swan![]() (6117) |
Im a BM wrote:Swan wrote:Im a BM wrote: I love it when the little boys and girls quote science and the scientist. I know the scientific and economic reason that apples split, does that count? PS. Stop inhaling laughing gas as you are already short on brain cells IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? ![]() Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy ![]() Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
Top Entities Only Want To Steal New Ideas Solutions, Do Not Want To Buy It | 5 | 31-12-2024 03:48 |
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity | 108 | 09-12-2024 19:46 |
A Gas Can Be A Barrier | 8 | 17-04-2024 13:39 |
A Gas Can Be ing A Barrier | 0 | 12-02-2024 04:51 |
Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change | 25 | 04-01-2024 06:33 |