<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_1710252</id>
	<title>Cows That Burp Less Methane to Be Bred</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245864180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Canadian scientists are <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5612957/Cows-that-burp-less-methane-to-be-bred.html">breeding a type of cow that burps less</a>, in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gases. Cows are responsible for almost 75\% of total methane emissions, mostly coming from burps. Stephen Moore, professor of agricultural, food and nutritional science at the University of Alberta, hopes the refined bovines will produce 25 per cent less methane. Nancy Hirshberg, spokesman for Stonyfield Farm says, "If every US dairy farmer reduced emissions by 12 per cent it would be equal to about half a million cars being taken off the road."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canadian scientists are breeding a type of cow that burps less , in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gases .
Cows are responsible for almost 75 \ % of total methane emissions , mostly coming from burps .
Stephen Moore , professor of agricultural , food and nutritional science at the University of Alberta , hopes the refined bovines will produce 25 per cent less methane .
Nancy Hirshberg , spokesman for Stonyfield Farm says , " If every US dairy farmer reduced emissions by 12 per cent it would be equal to about half a million cars being taken off the road .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canadian scientists are breeding a type of cow that burps less, in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gases.
Cows are responsible for almost 75\% of total methane emissions, mostly coming from burps.
Stephen Moore, professor of agricultural, food and nutritional science at the University of Alberta, hopes the refined bovines will produce 25 per cent less methane.
Nancy Hirshberg, spokesman for Stonyfield Farm says, "If every US dairy farmer reduced emissions by 12 per cent it would be equal to about half a million cars being taken off the road.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459531</id>
	<title>It's the beer.</title>
	<author>Drone69</author>
	<datestamp>1245841320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get rid of Canada's beer, the cows will sober up and burp less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of Canada 's beer , the cows will sober up and burp less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of Canada's beer, the cows will sober up and burp less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457773</id>
	<title>Methane = Fuel, No?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245834660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hold on a minute.  They want to genetically engineer cows to produce less methane at the same time as we look for alternative fuel sources?   Maybe I am overlooking something because of my ignorance, but why can't we harness the methane and use it as fuel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold on a minute .
They want to genetically engineer cows to produce less methane at the same time as we look for alternative fuel sources ?
Maybe I am overlooking something because of my ignorance , but why ca n't we harness the methane and use it as fuel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold on a minute.
They want to genetically engineer cows to produce less methane at the same time as we look for alternative fuel sources?
Maybe I am overlooking something because of my ignorance, but why can't we harness the methane and use it as fuel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456065</id>
	<title>Cow-goroos?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kangaroos have a different microbe in their gut that captures the methane and makes that energy available to the 'roo. There had been talk of trying to get this microbe into cattle, which would not only reduce the methane output from the cattle but would also make more food energy available to the cow. What ever happened to that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kangaroos have a different microbe in their gut that captures the methane and makes that energy available to the 'roo .
There had been talk of trying to get this microbe into cattle , which would not only reduce the methane output from the cattle but would also make more food energy available to the cow .
What ever happened to that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kangaroos have a different microbe in their gut that captures the methane and makes that energy available to the 'roo.
There had been talk of trying to get this microbe into cattle, which would not only reduce the methane output from the cattle but would also make more food energy available to the cow.
What ever happened to that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28466107</id>
	<title>We could...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245943440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could attach a cow to each car, and have a converter that takes this methane and uses it as energy source for the vehicle...imagine that...free gas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could attach a cow to each car , and have a converter that takes this methane and uses it as energy source for the vehicle...imagine that...free gas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could attach a cow to each car, and have a converter that takes this methane and uses it as energy source for the vehicle...imagine that...free gas!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456301</id>
	<title>Re:Veganism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245872040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't force your ideology on me and I won't force a steak down your throat.  There will never be a compelling reason for me to become a vegan.  A few miserable years tacked on to the end of my life or humanities existence is no reason to give up some of the few enjoyable things in life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't force your ideology on me and I wo n't force a steak down your throat .
There will never be a compelling reason for me to become a vegan .
A few miserable years tacked on to the end of my life or humanities existence is no reason to give up some of the few enjoyable things in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't force your ideology on me and I won't force a steak down your throat.
There will never be a compelling reason for me to become a vegan.
A few miserable years tacked on to the end of my life or humanities existence is no reason to give up some of the few enjoyable things in life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458325</id>
	<title>Forgetting feedlots?</title>
	<author>proselyte\_heretic</author>
	<datestamp>1245836700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>High methane from cows is a symptom of the problem, which is that most beef is from feedlots. Not only is the huge amount of waste produced by the feedlots a large methane source, but also the fields that are used to grow the feed (mostly corn). This article (print version: <a href="http://www.motherearthnews.com/print-article.aspx?id=150244" title="motherearthnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.motherearthnews.com/print-article.aspx?id=150244</a> [motherearthnews.com]) explains that conventional feedlot agriculture emits carbon dioxide and methane both on the fields and the feedlots, while rotational intensive grazing sequesters carbon and emits much less methane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>High methane from cows is a symptom of the problem , which is that most beef is from feedlots .
Not only is the huge amount of waste produced by the feedlots a large methane source , but also the fields that are used to grow the feed ( mostly corn ) .
This article ( print version : http : //www.motherearthnews.com/print-article.aspx ? id = 150244 [ motherearthnews.com ] ) explains that conventional feedlot agriculture emits carbon dioxide and methane both on the fields and the feedlots , while rotational intensive grazing sequesters carbon and emits much less methane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High methane from cows is a symptom of the problem, which is that most beef is from feedlots.
Not only is the huge amount of waste produced by the feedlots a large methane source, but also the fields that are used to grow the feed (mostly corn).
This article (print version: http://www.motherearthnews.com/print-article.aspx?id=150244 [motherearthnews.com]) explains that conventional feedlot agriculture emits carbon dioxide and methane both on the fields and the feedlots, while rotational intensive grazing sequesters carbon and emits much less methane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455349</id>
	<title>CotR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow!  With so many things taking more and more cars of the road (CotR), pretty soon it'll be like no one is driving at all.  It's my favorite new unit of measurement.  What's yours?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
With so many things taking more and more cars of the road ( CotR ) , pretty soon it 'll be like no one is driving at all .
It 's my favorite new unit of measurement .
What 's yours ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
With so many things taking more and more cars of the road (CotR), pretty soon it'll be like no one is driving at all.
It's my favorite new unit of measurement.
What's yours?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456373</id>
	<title>So what's the true carbon net effect here?</title>
	<author>Radtastic</author>
	<datestamp>1245872400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean the cow's net energy intake changes?  If so, what's the effect on (usable) energy output?
<br> <br>
If the energy that was previously exhausted as methane is now converted into edible calories, then I see benefit.
<br> <br>
If the cow needs less energy input (eats less) for the same caloric output, great.
<br> <br>
If the cow needs the same (or higher) energy input for the same usable output, it stands to reason if there's less methane output, then there has to be some waste-output going on.  So what's the ecological impact of that added waste?
<br> <br>
I'm no expert here, I'd love to hear from a biologist or someone more versed in the carbon cycle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean the cow 's net energy intake changes ?
If so , what 's the effect on ( usable ) energy output ?
If the energy that was previously exhausted as methane is now converted into edible calories , then I see benefit .
If the cow needs less energy input ( eats less ) for the same caloric output , great .
If the cow needs the same ( or higher ) energy input for the same usable output , it stands to reason if there 's less methane output , then there has to be some waste-output going on .
So what 's the ecological impact of that added waste ?
I 'm no expert here , I 'd love to hear from a biologist or someone more versed in the carbon cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean the cow's net energy intake changes?
If so, what's the effect on (usable) energy output?
If the energy that was previously exhausted as methane is now converted into edible calories, then I see benefit.
If the cow needs less energy input (eats less) for the same caloric output, great.
If the cow needs the same (or higher) energy input for the same usable output, it stands to reason if there's less methane output, then there has to be some waste-output going on.
So what's the ecological impact of that added waste?
I'm no expert here, I'd love to hear from a biologist or someone more versed in the carbon cycle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456311</id>
	<title>Re:Veganism</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1245872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You probably wondered why your cat died on that vegan diet, too, didn't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably wondered why your cat died on that vegan diet , too , did n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably wondered why your cat died on that vegan diet, too, didn't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459021</id>
	<title>Re:Grass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245839160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The consumer will not tolerate paying $30-$50 a pound for beef. Beef is cheap and pletiful because corn is cheap and plentiful. There would be FAR fewer cows if they had to make do with gras, and the prices would reflect that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The consumer will not tolerate paying $ 30- $ 50 a pound for beef .
Beef is cheap and pletiful because corn is cheap and plentiful .
There would be FAR fewer cows if they had to make do with gras , and the prices would reflect that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The consumer will not tolerate paying $30-$50 a pound for beef.
Beef is cheap and pletiful because corn is cheap and plentiful.
There would be FAR fewer cows if they had to make do with gras, and the prices would reflect that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457031</id>
	<title>Re:Meat Vats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Get rid of most of the cow/pig/chicken altogether. Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient. No more digestion means no more burps and farts. Place the meat factories in all cities to save on transport. In the long term you could even add infrastructure to pipe liquified meat product directly to restaurants and homes where it could be formed and flavored.</p><p>Welcome to the world of the future!</p></div><p>Y'know, that really is probably the answer and the future, but for some reason, the concept just grosses me out.  As if slaughtering a living animal isn't gross, right?  Go figure.  I'm probably not alone in this thought though, I think there'd be quite a lot of public resistance to it, just on principal - especially with all the "organic" nuts around.  <br>
500 years from now though, things willl probably have turned around 180 degrees.  People will be horrified and grossed out at the idea of actually eating the meat of a once-living, breathing,  fully developed animal. <br>
<br>
I wonder if they'll try to synthesize "real" cow's milk too? (Not a soy byproduct)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of most of the cow/pig/chicken altogether .
Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient .
No more digestion means no more burps and farts .
Place the meat factories in all cities to save on transport .
In the long term you could even add infrastructure to pipe liquified meat product directly to restaurants and homes where it could be formed and flavored.Welcome to the world of the future ! Y'know , that really is probably the answer and the future , but for some reason , the concept just grosses me out .
As if slaughtering a living animal is n't gross , right ?
Go figure .
I 'm probably not alone in this thought though , I think there 'd be quite a lot of public resistance to it , just on principal - especially with all the " organic " nuts around .
500 years from now though , things willl probably have turned around 180 degrees .
People will be horrified and grossed out at the idea of actually eating the meat of a once-living , breathing , fully developed animal .
I wonder if they 'll try to synthesize " real " cow 's milk too ?
( Not a soy byproduct )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of most of the cow/pig/chicken altogether.
Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient.
No more digestion means no more burps and farts.
Place the meat factories in all cities to save on transport.
In the long term you could even add infrastructure to pipe liquified meat product directly to restaurants and homes where it could be formed and flavored.Welcome to the world of the future!Y'know, that really is probably the answer and the future, but for some reason, the concept just grosses me out.
As if slaughtering a living animal isn't gross, right?
Go figure.
I'm probably not alone in this thought though, I think there'd be quite a lot of public resistance to it, just on principal - especially with all the "organic" nuts around.
500 years from now though, things willl probably have turned around 180 degrees.
People will be horrified and grossed out at the idea of actually eating the meat of a once-living, breathing,  fully developed animal.
I wonder if they'll try to synthesize "real" cow's milk too?
(Not a soy byproduct)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459415</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245840780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.</p></div><p>Not when they're fed corn that was shipped, using fossil fuels, halfway across the country to get there. (Let's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer, derived from petroleum, and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it, more petroleum. And the fact that the cow itself, after being processed, will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels.) Also, cows are ruminants: they're supposed to eat grass. Grass is free, and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.</p><p>If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices, cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral.</p></div><p>Wow..  did you burn any petroleum thinking all that up? You must hurt after all that.</p><p>Most farmers do farm locally. Meat is sold locally. Processed locally. Consumed locally. You're confusing mega-hormone meat factories with farms.</p><p>Try less fossil fuels and get over it, Gore lost.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.Not when they 're fed corn that was shipped , using fossil fuels , halfway across the country to get there .
( Let 's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer , derived from petroleum , and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it , more petroleum .
And the fact that the cow itself , after being processed , will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels .
) Also , cows are ruminants : they 're supposed to eat grass .
Grass is free , and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices , cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral.Wow.. did you burn any petroleum thinking all that up ?
You must hurt after all that.Most farmers do farm locally .
Meat is sold locally .
Processed locally .
Consumed locally .
You 're confusing mega-hormone meat factories with farms.Try less fossil fuels and get over it , Gore lost .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.Not when they're fed corn that was shipped, using fossil fuels, halfway across the country to get there.
(Let's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer, derived from petroleum, and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it, more petroleum.
And the fact that the cow itself, after being processed, will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels.
) Also, cows are ruminants: they're supposed to eat grass.
Grass is free, and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices, cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral.Wow..  did you burn any petroleum thinking all that up?
You must hurt after all that.Most farmers do farm locally.
Meat is sold locally.
Processed locally.
Consumed locally.
You're confusing mega-hormone meat factories with farms.Try less fossil fuels and get over it, Gore lost.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460673</id>
	<title>Re:Grass</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1245846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so radical.  I've never seen a cow eat anything but grass.  And I've herded the things and picked out the one I'd like to eat.  You guys down south do some crazy things, and you really love your corn.  Feeding it to your cows AND putting it in your pop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so radical .
I 've never seen a cow eat anything but grass .
And I 've herded the things and picked out the one I 'd like to eat .
You guys down south do some crazy things , and you really love your corn .
Feeding it to your cows AND putting it in your pop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so radical.
I've never seen a cow eat anything but grass.
And I've herded the things and picked out the one I'd like to eat.
You guys down south do some crazy things, and you really love your corn.
Feeding it to your cows AND putting it in your pop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459193</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1245839760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got the sixty million right, but are an order of magnitude out on the current population of cows.  Here's my comment to Salon magazine 2 years ago on this subject:<br>Here are my calculations, with references, courtesy of google and an hour of my time. Thanks also to the USDA and PBS.<br>Size of national herd, all cows and calves: 106 million.<br><a href="http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-07-20-2007.txt" title="cornell.edu">http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-07-20-2007.txt</a> [cornell.edu]<br>Number on feed (multiplying their GHG impact): 11 million.<br>(in short, they are only on feed near The End.)<br><a href="http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/cofd0907.txt" title="usda.gov">http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/cofd0907.txt</a> [usda.gov]<br>Number of bison they ecologically replaced, bison that ALSO produced GHGs:<br>60 million.<br><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/frontierlife/essay8.html" title="pbs.org">http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/frontierlife/essay8.html</a> [pbs.org]<br>OK, so because of the 11 million on feed, the 106 million cows have the GHG impact of a good 120 million grass-fed, so they have double the "natural" level produced by the bison?<br>But wait! Or, rather, weight:<br>Bull bison (37\% of herd): 1800-2500 lb.<br>Cow bison (45\%): 900-1200 lb.<br>Calves (18\%)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:35 lb up to numbers above<br>sources:<br>Herd composition:<br><a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-541X(198907)53\%3A3\%3C593\%3ACOBPEW\%3E2.0.CO\%3B2-R" title="jstor.org">http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-541X(198907)53\%3A3\%3C593\%3ACOBPEW\%3E2.0.CO\%3B2-R</a> [jstor.org]<br>Weight:<br><a href="http://www.gunpowderbison.com/Kids\%20Corner" title="gunpowderbison.com">http://www.gunpowderbison.com/Kids\%20Corner</a> [gunpowderbison.com]<br>So the TONNAGE of natural ruminants on the North American plains can be calculated from the above numbers (giving calves half the average of cow and bull) to be an "average bison" weight of 1559 lb. Times 60M, is 46.8 megatons.<br>The US herd is lighter because it's mostly younger than a natural one; we slaughter cows at 2 years, bison live 20, so a higher proportion of the total is calves.<br>My first reference also notes that just 33M of that national herd is over 500 lbs. Conservatively giving them all the full adult weight (from wikipedia, "cattle") halfway between 1300 and 1900 lb, and the average of the other 74M that are under 500lb, conservatively, at 400 lb...we get a total tonnage of beef at 41.2 megtons.<br>Bottom line: there are fewer tons of beef now than there were of bison in the 19th century. Beef eater's disturbance of the natural methane balance is zero, indeed it may be NEGATIVE.<br>Maybe not; 41.2MT is only 12\% less than 46.8MT and my whole-hour of research may have missed a few things. Also, the amplification of GHG output by the 10\% of the herd that's on feed is a factor. I'm willing to call it even, although my weight numbers were quite conservative.<br>So, there's no GHG impact at ALL, compared to the original, natural state. At least not in North America -- but what was the former methane production everywhere that are now cattle ranches? Most ranching is done where there was an equivalent animal before. And even swamps and rainforests have quite a bit of decomposition that produces methane.<br>Until you do that part of the calc - the previous GHG load from the former "natural" environment, you don't have a calculation, you have HALF a calculation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got the sixty million right , but are an order of magnitude out on the current population of cows .
Here 's my comment to Salon magazine 2 years ago on this subject : Here are my calculations , with references , courtesy of google and an hour of my time .
Thanks also to the USDA and PBS.Size of national herd , all cows and calves : 106 million.http : //usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-07-20-2007.txt [ cornell.edu ] Number on feed ( multiplying their GHG impact ) : 11 million .
( in short , they are only on feed near The End .
) http : //www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/cofd0907.txt [ usda.gov ] Number of bison they ecologically replaced , bison that ALSO produced GHGs : 60 million.http : //www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/frontierlife/essay8.html [ pbs.org ] OK , so because of the 11 million on feed , the 106 million cows have the GHG impact of a good 120 million grass-fed , so they have double the " natural " level produced by the bison ? But wait !
Or , rather , weight : Bull bison ( 37 \ % of herd ) : 1800-2500 lb.Cow bison ( 45 \ % ) : 900-1200 lb.Calves ( 18 \ % ) : 35 lb up to numbers abovesources : Herd composition : http : //links.jstor.org/sici ? sici = 0022-541X ( 198907 ) 53 \ % 3A3 \ % 3C593 \ % 3ACOBPEW \ % 3E2.0.CO \ % 3B2-R [ jstor.org ] Weight : http : //www.gunpowderbison.com/Kids \ % 20Corner [ gunpowderbison.com ] So the TONNAGE of natural ruminants on the North American plains can be calculated from the above numbers ( giving calves half the average of cow and bull ) to be an " average bison " weight of 1559 lb .
Times 60M , is 46.8 megatons.The US herd is lighter because it 's mostly younger than a natural one ; we slaughter cows at 2 years , bison live 20 , so a higher proportion of the total is calves.My first reference also notes that just 33M of that national herd is over 500 lbs .
Conservatively giving them all the full adult weight ( from wikipedia , " cattle " ) halfway between 1300 and 1900 lb , and the average of the other 74M that are under 500lb , conservatively , at 400 lb...we get a total tonnage of beef at 41.2 megtons.Bottom line : there are fewer tons of beef now than there were of bison in the 19th century .
Beef eater 's disturbance of the natural methane balance is zero , indeed it may be NEGATIVE.Maybe not ; 41.2MT is only 12 \ % less than 46.8MT and my whole-hour of research may have missed a few things .
Also , the amplification of GHG output by the 10 \ % of the herd that 's on feed is a factor .
I 'm willing to call it even , although my weight numbers were quite conservative.So , there 's no GHG impact at ALL , compared to the original , natural state .
At least not in North America -- but what was the former methane production everywhere that are now cattle ranches ?
Most ranching is done where there was an equivalent animal before .
And even swamps and rainforests have quite a bit of decomposition that produces methane.Until you do that part of the calc - the previous GHG load from the former " natural " environment , you do n't have a calculation , you have HALF a calculation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got the sixty million right, but are an order of magnitude out on the current population of cows.
Here's my comment to Salon magazine 2 years ago on this subject:Here are my calculations, with references, courtesy of google and an hour of my time.
Thanks also to the USDA and PBS.Size of national herd, all cows and calves: 106 million.http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-07-20-2007.txt [cornell.edu]Number on feed (multiplying their GHG impact): 11 million.
(in short, they are only on feed near The End.
)http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/cofd0907.txt [usda.gov]Number of bison they ecologically replaced, bison that ALSO produced GHGs:60 million.http://www.pbs.org/wnet/frontierhouse/frontierlife/essay8.html [pbs.org]OK, so because of the 11 million on feed, the 106 million cows have the GHG impact of a good 120 million grass-fed, so they have double the "natural" level produced by the bison?But wait!
Or, rather, weight:Bull bison (37\% of herd): 1800-2500 lb.Cow bison (45\%): 900-1200 lb.Calves (18\%) :35 lb up to numbers abovesources:Herd composition:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-541X(198907)53\%3A3\%3C593\%3ACOBPEW\%3E2.0.CO\%3B2-R [jstor.org]Weight:http://www.gunpowderbison.com/Kids\%20Corner [gunpowderbison.com]So the TONNAGE of natural ruminants on the North American plains can be calculated from the above numbers (giving calves half the average of cow and bull) to be an "average bison" weight of 1559 lb.
Times 60M, is 46.8 megatons.The US herd is lighter because it's mostly younger than a natural one; we slaughter cows at 2 years, bison live 20, so a higher proportion of the total is calves.My first reference also notes that just 33M of that national herd is over 500 lbs.
Conservatively giving them all the full adult weight (from wikipedia, "cattle") halfway between 1300 and 1900 lb, and the average of the other 74M that are under 500lb, conservatively, at 400 lb...we get a total tonnage of beef at 41.2 megtons.Bottom line: there are fewer tons of beef now than there were of bison in the 19th century.
Beef eater's disturbance of the natural methane balance is zero, indeed it may be NEGATIVE.Maybe not; 41.2MT is only 12\% less than 46.8MT and my whole-hour of research may have missed a few things.
Also, the amplification of GHG output by the 10\% of the herd that's on feed is a factor.
I'm willing to call it even, although my weight numbers were quite conservative.So, there's no GHG impact at ALL, compared to the original, natural state.
At least not in North America -- but what was the former methane production everywhere that are now cattle ranches?
Most ranching is done where there was an equivalent animal before.
And even swamps and rainforests have quite a bit of decomposition that produces methane.Until you do that part of the calc - the previous GHG load from the former "natural" environment, you don't have a calculation, you have HALF a calculation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579</id>
	<title>Feed them what nature intended</title>
	<author>futuresheep</author>
	<datestamp>1245869520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corn is not a natural food source for cows. It causes all sorts of issues by changing the ph balance of the cows stomachs, burping included. Feed them grass, alfalfa, and flax like one farmer did. There's no reason to genetically engineer them in this way.

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525590,00.html" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525590,00.html</a> [foxnews.com]

Not only did the burps get cut back, but the cows are healthier cutting vet costs down, and the milk and beef is more nutritious.

Milk and beef will cost a bit more, but considering the environmental and nutritional benefits of raising our cattle this way I think it's a fair trade off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corn is not a natural food source for cows .
It causes all sorts of issues by changing the ph balance of the cows stomachs , burping included .
Feed them grass , alfalfa , and flax like one farmer did .
There 's no reason to genetically engineer them in this way .
http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525590,00.html [ foxnews.com ] Not only did the burps get cut back , but the cows are healthier cutting vet costs down , and the milk and beef is more nutritious .
Milk and beef will cost a bit more , but considering the environmental and nutritional benefits of raising our cattle this way I think it 's a fair trade off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corn is not a natural food source for cows.
It causes all sorts of issues by changing the ph balance of the cows stomachs, burping included.
Feed them grass, alfalfa, and flax like one farmer did.
There's no reason to genetically engineer them in this way.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525590,00.html [foxnews.com]

Not only did the burps get cut back, but the cows are healthier cutting vet costs down, and the milk and beef is more nutritious.
Milk and beef will cost a bit more, but considering the environmental and nutritional benefits of raising our cattle this way I think it's a fair trade off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</id>
	<title>Meat Vats</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1245869100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get rid of most of the cow/pig/chicken altogether. Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient. No more digestion means no more burps and farts. Place the meat factories in all cities to save on transport. In the long term you could even add infrastructure to pipe liquified meat product directly to restaurants and homes where it could be formed and flavored.</p><p>Welcome to the world of the future!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of most of the cow/pig/chicken altogether .
Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient .
No more digestion means no more burps and farts .
Place the meat factories in all cities to save on transport .
In the long term you could even add infrastructure to pipe liquified meat product directly to restaurants and homes where it could be formed and flavored.Welcome to the world of the future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of most of the cow/pig/chicken altogether.
Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient.
No more digestion means no more burps and farts.
Place the meat factories in all cities to save on transport.
In the long term you could even add infrastructure to pipe liquified meat product directly to restaurants and homes where it could be formed and flavored.Welcome to the world of the future!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457403</id>
	<title>Recuperate methane?</title>
	<author>superluminique</author>
	<datestamp>1245876480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it's probably a silly idea but since a lot of cows (at least milk cows) spend most of their time inside, wouldn't there be a way to have the air circulation system go through some kind of filter that would recuperate methane? Instead of just wasting it in the atmosphere farmers could at least use it as an energy source that would allows them to save electricity, which comes -- at least partly -- from fossil fuel?<br>
<br>
BTW what's the status of methane recuperation from the big stacks of stinky manure sitting outside barns?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's probably a silly idea but since a lot of cows ( at least milk cows ) spend most of their time inside , would n't there be a way to have the air circulation system go through some kind of filter that would recuperate methane ?
Instead of just wasting it in the atmosphere farmers could at least use it as an energy source that would allows them to save electricity , which comes -- at least partly -- from fossil fuel ?
BTW what 's the status of methane recuperation from the big stacks of stinky manure sitting outside barns ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's probably a silly idea but since a lot of cows (at least milk cows) spend most of their time inside, wouldn't there be a way to have the air circulation system go through some kind of filter that would recuperate methane?
Instead of just wasting it in the atmosphere farmers could at least use it as an energy source that would allows them to save electricity, which comes -- at least partly -- from fossil fuel?
BTW what's the status of methane recuperation from the big stacks of stinky manure sitting outside barns?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456413</id>
	<title>Re:the numbers game</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1245872580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure. Now, go get every car made before 1990 off the roads.</p><p>Oh, and make sure to tell the people who can't afford a new car that "it's to save the environment." New cars are much better than older cars, but there's millions of old cars on the road, simply because people can't dish out a few grand just to have a car that doesn't pollute as much. They kinda need that money to not be homeless and starving. Reducing emissions from new cars isn't the issue. New cars are a small part of the problem. It's old cars still hanging around, and more people overall driving that is the issue with trying to fix emissions from vehicles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Now , go get every car made before 1990 off the roads.Oh , and make sure to tell the people who ca n't afford a new car that " it 's to save the environment .
" New cars are much better than older cars , but there 's millions of old cars on the road , simply because people ca n't dish out a few grand just to have a car that does n't pollute as much .
They kinda need that money to not be homeless and starving .
Reducing emissions from new cars is n't the issue .
New cars are a small part of the problem .
It 's old cars still hanging around , and more people overall driving that is the issue with trying to fix emissions from vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Now, go get every car made before 1990 off the roads.Oh, and make sure to tell the people who can't afford a new car that "it's to save the environment.
" New cars are much better than older cars, but there's millions of old cars on the road, simply because people can't dish out a few grand just to have a car that doesn't pollute as much.
They kinda need that money to not be homeless and starving.
Reducing emissions from new cars isn't the issue.
New cars are a small part of the problem.
It's old cars still hanging around, and more people overall driving that is the issue with trying to fix emissions from vehicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463337</id>
	<title>Re:The gist of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245870780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, the methane will not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, Methane has an average "lifespan" of about 10 years as opposed to 100 years of Cars. The Greenhouse contribution of cows cannot be compared to "number of cars on the road" in the normal sense. A cow is more like an Ethanol or Bio-Diesel car, as it lets out greenhouse gasses, but that carbon involved is already in the system. Oil that is brought up from the bottom of the ocean adds to the total in a completely different way.</p><p>C02(greenhouse effect(GE) =1) -&gt; Grass(GE=0) -&gt; Cow(GE=0) -&gt; Methane (GE=10) -&gt;<br>Grass (GE=0) -&gt; Cow(GE=0) -&gt; Methane (GE=10) -&gt;<br>Grass (GE=0)  -&gt; Cow(GE=0) -&gt; Methane (GE=10) -&gt;<br>-&gt; and so on, it's a cycle.</p><p>Oil (GE=0) -&gt; Gasoline (GE=0) -&gt; CO2 (GE=1)<br>Oil (GE=0) -&gt; Gasoline (GE=0) -&gt; CO2 (GE=1+1)<br>Oil (GE=0) -&gt; Gasoline (GE=0) -&gt; CO2 (GE=1+1+1)<br>-&gt; It's NOT a cycle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the methane will not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2 , Methane has an average " lifespan " of about 10 years as opposed to 100 years of Cars .
The Greenhouse contribution of cows can not be compared to " number of cars on the road " in the normal sense .
A cow is more like an Ethanol or Bio-Diesel car , as it lets out greenhouse gasses , but that carbon involved is already in the system .
Oil that is brought up from the bottom of the ocean adds to the total in a completely different way.C02 ( greenhouse effect ( GE ) = 1 ) - &gt; Grass ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Cow ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Methane ( GE = 10 ) - &gt; Grass ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Cow ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Methane ( GE = 10 ) - &gt; Grass ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Cow ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Methane ( GE = 10 ) - &gt; - &gt; and so on , it 's a cycle.Oil ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Gasoline ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; CO2 ( GE = 1 ) Oil ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Gasoline ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; CO2 ( GE = 1 + 1 ) Oil ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; Gasoline ( GE = 0 ) - &gt; CO2 ( GE = 1 + 1 + 1 ) - &gt; It 's NOT a cycle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the methane will not remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2, Methane has an average "lifespan" of about 10 years as opposed to 100 years of Cars.
The Greenhouse contribution of cows cannot be compared to "number of cars on the road" in the normal sense.
A cow is more like an Ethanol or Bio-Diesel car, as it lets out greenhouse gasses, but that carbon involved is already in the system.
Oil that is brought up from the bottom of the ocean adds to the total in a completely different way.C02(greenhouse effect(GE) =1) -&gt; Grass(GE=0) -&gt; Cow(GE=0) -&gt; Methane (GE=10) -&gt;Grass (GE=0) -&gt; Cow(GE=0) -&gt; Methane (GE=10) -&gt;Grass (GE=0)  -&gt; Cow(GE=0) -&gt; Methane (GE=10) -&gt;-&gt; and so on, it's a cycle.Oil (GE=0) -&gt; Gasoline (GE=0) -&gt; CO2 (GE=1)Oil (GE=0) -&gt; Gasoline (GE=0) -&gt; CO2 (GE=1+1)Oil (GE=0) -&gt; Gasoline (GE=0) -&gt; CO2 (GE=1+1+1)-&gt; It's NOT a cycle</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460031</id>
	<title>Another way to deal with the methane problem</title>
	<author>FishTankX</author>
	<datestamp>1245843960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we wanted to cut down on the amount of methane that cows emit, couldn't we just put pilot lights on their mouths? Then we'd have firebreathing cows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we wanted to cut down on the amount of methane that cows emit , could n't we just put pilot lights on their mouths ?
Then we 'd have firebreathing cows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we wanted to cut down on the amount of methane that cows emit, couldn't we just put pilot lights on their mouths?
Then we'd have firebreathing cows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455171</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Clandestine\_Blaze</author>
	<datestamp>1245868260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just udderly ridiculous!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just udderly ridiculous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just udderly ridiculous!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28467523</id>
	<title>Re:Meat Vats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245950160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This immediately made me think of the "hottie trees" in <a href="http://www.2000adonline.com/" title="2000adonline.com" rel="nofollow">2000 ad's</a> [2000adonline.com] Judge Dredd where the mega cities of the future had trees which grew hot dogs and burgers etc.</p><p>Most entertaining !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This immediately made me think of the " hottie trees " in 2000 ad 's [ 2000adonline.com ] Judge Dredd where the mega cities of the future had trees which grew hot dogs and burgers etc.Most entertaining !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This immediately made me think of the "hottie trees" in 2000 ad's [2000adonline.com] Judge Dredd where the mega cities of the future had trees which grew hot dogs and burgers etc.Most entertaining !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462315</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>R.Mo\_Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1245859320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I contemplated not even saying it, and I guess I shouldn't have: when I said "organic," I didn't mean "USDA organic," because the USDA managed to mess even that up by allowing some of the things you mentioned. I guess I really meant "natural," although that word probably doesn't mean anything anymore, either. This means imitating a natural rotation of crops and animals--Polyface Farm is a famous (well, as famous as a farm can be) example of this. It can be done. Most of the problems you mention are problems with "organic" (USDA-certifiable organic, I mean) farms that try to operate like conventional farms, just without the prohibited pesticides and fertlizers. There are better ways. Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.</p><p>In light of this, I'm not convinced that conventional farming's use of fertilizers and pesticides is somehow greener than not using them (except in some "industrial organic"--dare I call them Big Organic?--farms like those I mentioned; you're certainly right that their excessive tilling [often used as a non-pesticidal form of weed control] and other practices is not necessarily better). While it may be purely in terms of the amount of energy you consume on the farm (which, again, is only a problem on "industrial organic" farms), it certainly doesn't take into account the fact that these pesticides and fertilizers run off the fields and into our water, not to mention the plants themselves, and eventually our bodies. (And even if you don't think they do anything to us [we've certainly been wrong in the past, by the way], there are other problems that don't involve just us, like algal blooms.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I contemplated not even saying it , and I guess I should n't have : when I said " organic , " I did n't mean " USDA organic , " because the USDA managed to mess even that up by allowing some of the things you mentioned .
I guess I really meant " natural , " although that word probably does n't mean anything anymore , either .
This means imitating a natural rotation of crops and animals--Polyface Farm is a famous ( well , as famous as a farm can be ) example of this .
It can be done .
Most of the problems you mention are problems with " organic " ( USDA-certifiable organic , I mean ) farms that try to operate like conventional farms , just without the prohibited pesticides and fertlizers .
There are better ways .
Basically , if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick , you 're doing something wrong.In light of this , I 'm not convinced that conventional farming 's use of fertilizers and pesticides is somehow greener than not using them ( except in some " industrial organic " --dare I call them Big Organic ? --farms like those I mentioned ; you 're certainly right that their excessive tilling [ often used as a non-pesticidal form of weed control ] and other practices is not necessarily better ) .
While it may be purely in terms of the amount of energy you consume on the farm ( which , again , is only a problem on " industrial organic " farms ) , it certainly does n't take into account the fact that these pesticides and fertilizers run off the fields and into our water , not to mention the plants themselves , and eventually our bodies .
( And even if you do n't think they do anything to us [ we 've certainly been wrong in the past , by the way ] , there are other problems that do n't involve just us , like algal blooms .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I contemplated not even saying it, and I guess I shouldn't have: when I said "organic," I didn't mean "USDA organic," because the USDA managed to mess even that up by allowing some of the things you mentioned.
I guess I really meant "natural," although that word probably doesn't mean anything anymore, either.
This means imitating a natural rotation of crops and animals--Polyface Farm is a famous (well, as famous as a farm can be) example of this.
It can be done.
Most of the problems you mention are problems with "organic" (USDA-certifiable organic, I mean) farms that try to operate like conventional farms, just without the prohibited pesticides and fertlizers.
There are better ways.
Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.In light of this, I'm not convinced that conventional farming's use of fertilizers and pesticides is somehow greener than not using them (except in some "industrial organic"--dare I call them Big Organic?--farms like those I mentioned; you're certainly right that their excessive tilling [often used as a non-pesticidal form of weed control] and other practices is not necessarily better).
While it may be purely in terms of the amount of energy you consume on the farm (which, again, is only a problem on "industrial organic" farms), it certainly doesn't take into account the fact that these pesticides and fertilizers run off the fields and into our water, not to mention the plants themselves, and eventually our bodies.
(And even if you don't think they do anything to us [we've certainly been wrong in the past, by the way], there are other problems that don't involve just us, like algal blooms.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457335</id>
	<title>Re:More cowbell</title>
	<author>beadfulthings</author>
	<datestamp>1245876180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno. It seems to me that if you live in a farm area, "Don't Fear the Reaper" has a whole different meaning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
It seems to me that if you live in a farm area , " Do n't Fear the Reaper " has a whole different meaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
It seems to me that if you live in a farm area, "Don't Fear the Reaper" has a whole different meaning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463571</id>
	<title>Re:Meat Vats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245960300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21meat.html</p><p>PETA is offering...a, quite frankly, measly 1 mil for &#226;oefirst person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012.&#226;</p><p>Some of the nuts say that's bad because they're "still eating animal tissue" but I always thought it was for the ethical treatment of animals, not the ethical treatment of...things that can't even be classified as dead things since they were never really alive.</p><p>Still, 1 mil is better than no mil. And if you pound together the meat in the right shape, hey no problem as long as it tastes the same.</p><p>"Hello-my-name-is-Marie gave Sable his MEAL&#226; and told him to have a nice day.</p><p>He found a small plastic table, sat down in the plastic seat, and examined his food.</p><p>Artificial bread roll. Artificial burger. Fries that had never even seen potatoes. Foodless sauces. Even (and Sable was especially pleased with this) an artificial slice of dill pickle. He didn't bother to examine his milkshake. It had no actual food contents, but then again, neither did those sold by any of his rivals.</p><p>All around him people were eating their unfood with, if not actual evidence of enjoyment, then with no more actual disgust than was to be found in burger chains all over the planet."</p><p>-from Good Omens by Terry Pratchett</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21meat.htmlPETA is offering...a , quite frankly , measly 1 mil for   oefirst person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012.   Some of the nuts say that 's bad because they 're " still eating animal tissue " but I always thought it was for the ethical treatment of animals , not the ethical treatment of...things that ca n't even be classified as dead things since they were never really alive.Still , 1 mil is better than no mil .
And if you pound together the meat in the right shape , hey no problem as long as it tastes the same .
" Hello-my-name-is-Marie gave Sable his MEAL   and told him to have a nice day.He found a small plastic table , sat down in the plastic seat , and examined his food.Artificial bread roll .
Artificial burger .
Fries that had never even seen potatoes .
Foodless sauces .
Even ( and Sable was especially pleased with this ) an artificial slice of dill pickle .
He did n't bother to examine his milkshake .
It had no actual food contents , but then again , neither did those sold by any of his rivals.All around him people were eating their unfood with , if not actual evidence of enjoyment , then with no more actual disgust than was to be found in burger chains all over the planet .
" -from Good Omens by Terry Pratchett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21meat.htmlPETA is offering...a, quite frankly, measly 1 mil for âoefirst person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012.âSome of the nuts say that's bad because they're "still eating animal tissue" but I always thought it was for the ethical treatment of animals, not the ethical treatment of...things that can't even be classified as dead things since they were never really alive.Still, 1 mil is better than no mil.
And if you pound together the meat in the right shape, hey no problem as long as it tastes the same.
"Hello-my-name-is-Marie gave Sable his MEALâ and told him to have a nice day.He found a small plastic table, sat down in the plastic seat, and examined his food.Artificial bread roll.
Artificial burger.
Fries that had never even seen potatoes.
Foodless sauces.
Even (and Sable was especially pleased with this) an artificial slice of dill pickle.
He didn't bother to examine his milkshake.
It had no actual food contents, but then again, neither did those sold by any of his rivals.All around him people were eating their unfood with, if not actual evidence of enjoyment, then with no more actual disgust than was to be found in burger chains all over the planet.
"-from Good Omens by Terry Pratchett</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459243</id>
	<title>Re:Cow-goroos?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245839940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first iteration of genetically crossbred kanga-cows were essentially jumping cows weighing two metric tonnes.  When they reached maturity all hell broke and the project was terminated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first iteration of genetically crossbred kanga-cows were essentially jumping cows weighing two metric tonnes .
When they reached maturity all hell broke and the project was terminated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first iteration of genetically crossbred kanga-cows were essentially jumping cows weighing two metric tonnes.
When they reached maturity all hell broke and the project was terminated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28465563</id>
	<title>Re:Veganism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245940440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, there's got to be a solution other than giving up all the food that tastes good. Bacon, man! How do you expect me to live without Bacon!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , there 's got to be a solution other than giving up all the food that tastes good .
Bacon , man !
How do you expect me to live without Bacon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, there's got to be a solution other than giving up all the food that tastes good.
Bacon, man!
How do you expect me to live without Bacon!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455845</id>
	<title>I'm very tired of global warming</title>
	<author>realcoolguy425</author>
	<datestamp>1245870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere\_gas\_proportions.svg/180px-Atmosphere\_gas\_proportions.svg.png" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere\_gas\_proportions.svg/180px-Atmosphere\_gas\_proportions.svg.png</a> [wikimedia.org]  and of the greenhouse gases... <a href="http://theglobalhoax.com/science/greenhousegassource.gif" title="theglobalhoax.com" rel="nofollow">http://theglobalhoax.com/science/greenhousegassource.gif</a> [theglobalhoax.com] [decidedly biases source... but you get the idea]  Either way, I'm tired of all this global warming... nonsensical, non-scientific, love-fest.  Greenhouse gases are not an issue.  At least not one we can control beyond the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.035\% of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.03\%.  Either way, the amount of influence we have on greenhouse gases is likely within the margin of error for test equipment anyway!  Lets worry about particulate matter, smog, or at least something that is actual a problem we experience.  I feel a little sick whenever I think about how much money has been spent on 'global warming' that could have been spent on so many other environmental pursuits that would actually benefit us.  I guess I'll see if Al Gore has modpoints or not today!</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere \ _gas \ _proportions.svg/180px-Atmosphere \ _gas \ _proportions.svg.png [ wikimedia.org ] and of the greenhouse gases... http : //theglobalhoax.com/science/greenhousegassource.gif [ theglobalhoax.com ] [ decidedly biases source... but you get the idea ] Either way , I 'm tired of all this global warming... nonsensical , non-scientific , love-fest .
Greenhouse gases are not an issue .
At least not one we can control beyond the .035 \ % of .03 \ % .
Either way , the amount of influence we have on greenhouse gases is likely within the margin of error for test equipment anyway !
Lets worry about particulate matter , smog , or at least something that is actual a problem we experience .
I feel a little sick whenever I think about how much money has been spent on 'global warming ' that could have been spent on so many other environmental pursuits that would actually benefit us .
I guess I 'll see if Al Gore has modpoints or not today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere\_gas\_proportions.svg/180px-Atmosphere\_gas\_proportions.svg.png [wikimedia.org]  and of the greenhouse gases... http://theglobalhoax.com/science/greenhousegassource.gif [theglobalhoax.com] [decidedly biases source... but you get the idea]  Either way, I'm tired of all this global warming... nonsensical, non-scientific, love-fest.
Greenhouse gases are not an issue.
At least not one we can control beyond the .035\% of .03\%.
Either way, the amount of influence we have on greenhouse gases is likely within the margin of error for test equipment anyway!
Lets worry about particulate matter, smog, or at least something that is actual a problem we experience.
I feel a little sick whenever I think about how much money has been spent on 'global warming' that could have been spent on so many other environmental pursuits that would actually benefit us.
I guess I'll see if Al Gore has modpoints or not today!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291</id>
	<title>Veganism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is now, more than ever, a compelling reason to adopt a vegan lifestyle.  Based on the amount of pollution caused in meat and dairy industry, no one can call themselves green who is not also vegan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is now , more than ever , a compelling reason to adopt a vegan lifestyle .
Based on the amount of pollution caused in meat and dairy industry , no one can call themselves green who is not also vegan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is now, more than ever, a compelling reason to adopt a vegan lifestyle.
Based on the amount of pollution caused in meat and dairy industry, no one can call themselves green who is not also vegan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463135</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1245868560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CEO, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CEO , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CEO, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457945</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only cows I'm eatin' are the burpin' and fartin' kind.  Just ain't right that an animule don't be makin' a stink.</p><p>But really people what kind of insane race are we.  Do we really want to be the only species left on the planet makin' a stink.  How udderly embarrassing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only cows I 'm eatin ' are the burpin ' and fartin ' kind .
Just ai n't right that an animule do n't be makin ' a stink.But really people what kind of insane race are we .
Do we really want to be the only species left on the planet makin ' a stink .
How udderly embarrassing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only cows I'm eatin' are the burpin' and fartin' kind.
Just ain't right that an animule don't be makin' a stink.But really people what kind of insane race are we.
Do we really want to be the only species left on the planet makin' a stink.
How udderly embarrassing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462459</id>
	<title>Re:The gist of the problem</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1245860640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;If you have ever been near an industrial cattle or dairy farm, the stench is unimaginable. In a large cattle farm you can see the methane pockets causing the horizon to wiggle.</p><p>This being slashdot, I must assume that your sentence simply came out wrong and that you know that methane itself is colorless and odorless.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; If you have ever been near an industrial cattle or dairy farm , the stench is unimaginable .
In a large cattle farm you can see the methane pockets causing the horizon to wiggle.This being slashdot , I must assume that your sentence simply came out wrong and that you know that methane itself is colorless and odorless.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;If you have ever been near an industrial cattle or dairy farm, the stench is unimaginable.
In a large cattle farm you can see the methane pockets causing the horizon to wiggle.This being slashdot, I must assume that your sentence simply came out wrong and that you know that methane itself is colorless and odorless.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28468941</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1245955380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.</p></div><p>Livestock farms smell, Always, No matter what!  The central reason being that livestock produce feces which contains incompletely digested nutrients, and urine which contains excreted compounds.  You can manage the smell, mask it to varying degrees, or have so few animals that you don't notice it unless standing next to the manure pile, but there is no way to produce meat for yourself and have enough left over to sell at a profit without producing a lot of smelly manure.<br> <br>Farmers farm to make money, just like everyone else.  They chose the field they did because of an affinity for the animals and/or land, but if they don't turn a profit they'll be forced to sell the land and animals at a loss to someone capable of managing things more efficiently.  That's why they use intensive agriculture (CAFO's).  It minimizes overhead an means that they get to turn a profit more years than not (Currently most US hogs being sold by farmers to processing plants are being sold at a loss, ie it cost the farmer more to feed the pigs than they are getting for them at the plant).<br> <br>The original tenants being the "Organic" movement are that "Natural is best" and "Industrial is Bad".  Unfortunately, the world is not that simple.  Natural is usually not best, and in many cases isn't even good.  <br> <br>Take chicken for example.  The methionine requirement for growing broiler chickens is 0.5\% from 0-3weeks of age, 0.38\% from 3-6weeks of age and 0.32\% from 6-8weeks of age (nutrient requirement of poultry. 9th edition pub. National Research Council, 1994), at which time the bird is usually at market weight and harvested.  I use methionine as an example because the birds use a lot of it for growing feathers.  It is impossible to formulate a broiler diet that is adequate in methionine that isn't wasting over half of the protein in the diet.  This is because plants are poor sources of methionine (Corn =<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.18\%).  You have to add so much soybean meal to the diet that you end up with concentrations of all the other amino acids well in excess of requirement.  This leads to a lot of excreted Nitrogen, which is one of the 2 main environmental pollutants in animal waste (the other being Phosphorus).  The USDA-certifiable organic guidelines have an exception for the use of synthetic methionine (99.99\% methionine by weight) because otherwise organic farmers would never be able to stay profitable.  If you are one of those that believes these kinds of exceptions are cheating, then I can assure you that there is no such thing as "Organic" chicken in the US.  I can also assure you that any attempt to produce "Organic" chicken will result in very expensive meat that has at least 2x the negative impact on the environment of "Industrial" chicken.<br> <br>This is not an isolated example.  Most of the changes away from "Organic" agriculture were made because they were the best practices as determined scientifically.  The organic movement is about putting emotion above rigorous scientific examination of the evidence when deciding how to run a business.<br> <br>Fertilizer is expensive, as is pesticide.  Not using either is unacceptable because the US needs most of the corn and soy it produces every year.  You could of made the (weak) argument that the US's level of production was unnecessary a decade ago, but not now that &gt;25\% of the domestic corn crop is going toward the ethanol industry.  Organic farmers choose to produce grain and meat inefficiently at a time when we are trying to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil by making the whole country more efficient.  These two movements have found acceptance in the minds of many of the same people despite being contradictory to the goals of each other.<br> <br>I used to think that the Organic movement was a good idea.  Let the farmers charge those with too much money and not enough brains more for the emotional high they get from eating inefficiently produced food.  But now that the country is turning everything upside down in an attempt to go "Green" I fail to see how anyone is capable of reconciling those to movements.  The only thing that makes sense to me is that they <b>aren't</b> thinking about them at all.<br> <br>It's interesting that you mention algal blooms.  I did my MS thesis on the use of Phytase to liberate Phosphorus from the molecule Phytate.  Phytate consists of an inositol (benzene) ring with a phosphate (PO4) bound to each of the 6 carbons in the ring.  This is the form in which plants store Phosphorus (65\% of P in Soybean meal &amp; 71\% of P in corn).  Phytate is not only indigestible in pigs and chickens, requiring rock phosphates be feed in order to meet the animals metabolic requirement, but it also has an incredibly high capacity for chelating (covalently binding) other minerals, carbohydrates, proteins, and amino acids.  This chelation reduces the availability of those nutrients as well.  Phytase is an enzyme that targets phytate specifically and degrades it, liberating most of the P as well as the chelated compounds.  It was originally derived from yeasts and bacteria via molecular techniques and is mass produced via over expression in a fermentation system.  My research showed that you could eliminate the need for rock phosphates in the diets of pigs from 10 to 80 kg of body weight by simply adding phytase.  You could also decrease the amount of total P (regardless of what it's bound to) and water-soluble P (that most likely to pollute water and cause algae blooms, fish kills, and other kinds of eutrophication) by 30-40\% over the life of the pigs.<br> <br>I <b>KNOW</b> that modern agriculture is more green than organic could <i>ever</i> be because I've seen the data and understand the underlying principals of animal production and nutrition.  Organic farming throws out the last half century of advancements for piece of mind that is undeserved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick , you 're doing something wrong.Livestock farms smell , Always , No matter what !
The central reason being that livestock produce feces which contains incompletely digested nutrients , and urine which contains excreted compounds .
You can manage the smell , mask it to varying degrees , or have so few animals that you do n't notice it unless standing next to the manure pile , but there is no way to produce meat for yourself and have enough left over to sell at a profit without producing a lot of smelly manure .
Farmers farm to make money , just like everyone else .
They chose the field they did because of an affinity for the animals and/or land , but if they do n't turn a profit they 'll be forced to sell the land and animals at a loss to someone capable of managing things more efficiently .
That 's why they use intensive agriculture ( CAFO 's ) .
It minimizes overhead an means that they get to turn a profit more years than not ( Currently most US hogs being sold by farmers to processing plants are being sold at a loss , ie it cost the farmer more to feed the pigs than they are getting for them at the plant ) .
The original tenants being the " Organic " movement are that " Natural is best " and " Industrial is Bad " .
Unfortunately , the world is not that simple .
Natural is usually not best , and in many cases is n't even good .
Take chicken for example .
The methionine requirement for growing broiler chickens is 0.5 \ % from 0-3weeks of age , 0.38 \ % from 3-6weeks of age and 0.32 \ % from 6-8weeks of age ( nutrient requirement of poultry .
9th edition pub .
National Research Council , 1994 ) , at which time the bird is usually at market weight and harvested .
I use methionine as an example because the birds use a lot of it for growing feathers .
It is impossible to formulate a broiler diet that is adequate in methionine that is n't wasting over half of the protein in the diet .
This is because plants are poor sources of methionine ( Corn = .18 \ % ) .
You have to add so much soybean meal to the diet that you end up with concentrations of all the other amino acids well in excess of requirement .
This leads to a lot of excreted Nitrogen , which is one of the 2 main environmental pollutants in animal waste ( the other being Phosphorus ) .
The USDA-certifiable organic guidelines have an exception for the use of synthetic methionine ( 99.99 \ % methionine by weight ) because otherwise organic farmers would never be able to stay profitable .
If you are one of those that believes these kinds of exceptions are cheating , then I can assure you that there is no such thing as " Organic " chicken in the US .
I can also assure you that any attempt to produce " Organic " chicken will result in very expensive meat that has at least 2x the negative impact on the environment of " Industrial " chicken .
This is not an isolated example .
Most of the changes away from " Organic " agriculture were made because they were the best practices as determined scientifically .
The organic movement is about putting emotion above rigorous scientific examination of the evidence when deciding how to run a business .
Fertilizer is expensive , as is pesticide .
Not using either is unacceptable because the US needs most of the corn and soy it produces every year .
You could of made the ( weak ) argument that the US 's level of production was unnecessary a decade ago , but not now that &gt; 25 \ % of the domestic corn crop is going toward the ethanol industry .
Organic farmers choose to produce grain and meat inefficiently at a time when we are trying to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil by making the whole country more efficient .
These two movements have found acceptance in the minds of many of the same people despite being contradictory to the goals of each other .
I used to think that the Organic movement was a good idea .
Let the farmers charge those with too much money and not enough brains more for the emotional high they get from eating inefficiently produced food .
But now that the country is turning everything upside down in an attempt to go " Green " I fail to see how anyone is capable of reconciling those to movements .
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they are n't thinking about them at all .
It 's interesting that you mention algal blooms .
I did my MS thesis on the use of Phytase to liberate Phosphorus from the molecule Phytate .
Phytate consists of an inositol ( benzene ) ring with a phosphate ( PO4 ) bound to each of the 6 carbons in the ring .
This is the form in which plants store Phosphorus ( 65 \ % of P in Soybean meal &amp; 71 \ % of P in corn ) .
Phytate is not only indigestible in pigs and chickens , requiring rock phosphates be feed in order to meet the animals metabolic requirement , but it also has an incredibly high capacity for chelating ( covalently binding ) other minerals , carbohydrates , proteins , and amino acids .
This chelation reduces the availability of those nutrients as well .
Phytase is an enzyme that targets phytate specifically and degrades it , liberating most of the P as well as the chelated compounds .
It was originally derived from yeasts and bacteria via molecular techniques and is mass produced via over expression in a fermentation system .
My research showed that you could eliminate the need for rock phosphates in the diets of pigs from 10 to 80 kg of body weight by simply adding phytase .
You could also decrease the amount of total P ( regardless of what it 's bound to ) and water-soluble P ( that most likely to pollute water and cause algae blooms , fish kills , and other kinds of eutrophication ) by 30-40 \ % over the life of the pigs .
I KNOW that modern agriculture is more green than organic could ever be because I 've seen the data and understand the underlying principals of animal production and nutrition .
Organic farming throws out the last half century of advancements for piece of mind that is undeserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.Livestock farms smell, Always, No matter what!
The central reason being that livestock produce feces which contains incompletely digested nutrients, and urine which contains excreted compounds.
You can manage the smell, mask it to varying degrees, or have so few animals that you don't notice it unless standing next to the manure pile, but there is no way to produce meat for yourself and have enough left over to sell at a profit without producing a lot of smelly manure.
Farmers farm to make money, just like everyone else.
They chose the field they did because of an affinity for the animals and/or land, but if they don't turn a profit they'll be forced to sell the land and animals at a loss to someone capable of managing things more efficiently.
That's why they use intensive agriculture (CAFO's).
It minimizes overhead an means that they get to turn a profit more years than not (Currently most US hogs being sold by farmers to processing plants are being sold at a loss, ie it cost the farmer more to feed the pigs than they are getting for them at the plant).
The original tenants being the "Organic" movement are that "Natural is best" and "Industrial is Bad".
Unfortunately, the world is not that simple.
Natural is usually not best, and in many cases isn't even good.
Take chicken for example.
The methionine requirement for growing broiler chickens is 0.5\% from 0-3weeks of age, 0.38\% from 3-6weeks of age and 0.32\% from 6-8weeks of age (nutrient requirement of poultry.
9th edition pub.
National Research Council, 1994), at which time the bird is usually at market weight and harvested.
I use methionine as an example because the birds use a lot of it for growing feathers.
It is impossible to formulate a broiler diet that is adequate in methionine that isn't wasting over half of the protein in the diet.
This is because plants are poor sources of methionine (Corn = .18\%).
You have to add so much soybean meal to the diet that you end up with concentrations of all the other amino acids well in excess of requirement.
This leads to a lot of excreted Nitrogen, which is one of the 2 main environmental pollutants in animal waste (the other being Phosphorus).
The USDA-certifiable organic guidelines have an exception for the use of synthetic methionine (99.99\% methionine by weight) because otherwise organic farmers would never be able to stay profitable.
If you are one of those that believes these kinds of exceptions are cheating, then I can assure you that there is no such thing as "Organic" chicken in the US.
I can also assure you that any attempt to produce "Organic" chicken will result in very expensive meat that has at least 2x the negative impact on the environment of "Industrial" chicken.
This is not an isolated example.
Most of the changes away from "Organic" agriculture were made because they were the best practices as determined scientifically.
The organic movement is about putting emotion above rigorous scientific examination of the evidence when deciding how to run a business.
Fertilizer is expensive, as is pesticide.
Not using either is unacceptable because the US needs most of the corn and soy it produces every year.
You could of made the (weak) argument that the US's level of production was unnecessary a decade ago, but not now that &gt;25\% of the domestic corn crop is going toward the ethanol industry.
Organic farmers choose to produce grain and meat inefficiently at a time when we are trying to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil by making the whole country more efficient.
These two movements have found acceptance in the minds of many of the same people despite being contradictory to the goals of each other.
I used to think that the Organic movement was a good idea.
Let the farmers charge those with too much money and not enough brains more for the emotional high they get from eating inefficiently produced food.
But now that the country is turning everything upside down in an attempt to go "Green" I fail to see how anyone is capable of reconciling those to movements.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they aren't thinking about them at all.
It's interesting that you mention algal blooms.
I did my MS thesis on the use of Phytase to liberate Phosphorus from the molecule Phytate.
Phytate consists of an inositol (benzene) ring with a phosphate (PO4) bound to each of the 6 carbons in the ring.
This is the form in which plants store Phosphorus (65\% of P in Soybean meal &amp; 71\% of P in corn).
Phytate is not only indigestible in pigs and chickens, requiring rock phosphates be feed in order to meet the animals metabolic requirement, but it also has an incredibly high capacity for chelating (covalently binding) other minerals, carbohydrates, proteins, and amino acids.
This chelation reduces the availability of those nutrients as well.
Phytase is an enzyme that targets phytate specifically and degrades it, liberating most of the P as well as the chelated compounds.
It was originally derived from yeasts and bacteria via molecular techniques and is mass produced via over expression in a fermentation system.
My research showed that you could eliminate the need for rock phosphates in the diets of pigs from 10 to 80 kg of body weight by simply adding phytase.
You could also decrease the amount of total P (regardless of what it's bound to) and water-soluble P (that most likely to pollute water and cause algae blooms, fish kills, and other kinds of eutrophication) by 30-40\% over the life of the pigs.
I KNOW that modern agriculture is more green than organic could ever be because I've seen the data and understand the underlying principals of animal production and nutrition.
Organic farming throws out the last half century of advancements for piece of mind that is undeserved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460071</id>
	<title>Pastured Is Better</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1245844140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pastured livestock don't burp and toot as much methane. In any case it is not actually as significant as some people are saying. The numbers are being distorted and exaggerated for political purposes. Still, buy locally pastured meat. It's a better choice and uses resources, pasture land, that you can't eat rather than grain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pastured livestock do n't burp and toot as much methane .
In any case it is not actually as significant as some people are saying .
The numbers are being distorted and exaggerated for political purposes .
Still , buy locally pastured meat .
It 's a better choice and uses resources , pasture land , that you ca n't eat rather than grain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pastured livestock don't burp and toot as much methane.
In any case it is not actually as significant as some people are saying.
The numbers are being distorted and exaggerated for political purposes.
Still, buy locally pastured meat.
It's a better choice and uses resources, pasture land, that you can't eat rather than grain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455235</id>
	<title>Canadians fulfulling American political promises..</title>
	<author>devleopard</author>
	<datestamp>1245868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorta. Well, they promised to reduce the bullshit, which we can't do, but here's the next best thing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorta .
Well , they promised to reduce the bullshit , which we ca n't do , but here 's the next best thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorta.
Well, they promised to reduce the bullshit, which we can't do, but here's the next best thing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462861</id>
	<title>Capture and use as energy?</title>
	<author>trawg</author>
	<datestamp>1245865200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wondered, if cows produce so much methane, is there a way to capture it and use it as an energy source?</p><p>I guess capturing methane from cows is a non-trivial exercise, but it sure sounds fun. I want to drive around and see cows wearing crazy helmets with gas tanks on their back like bovine scuba divers doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered , if cows produce so much methane , is there a way to capture it and use it as an energy source ? I guess capturing methane from cows is a non-trivial exercise , but it sure sounds fun .
I want to drive around and see cows wearing crazy helmets with gas tanks on their back like bovine scuba divers doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered, if cows produce so much methane, is there a way to capture it and use it as an energy source?I guess capturing methane from cows is a non-trivial exercise, but it sure sounds fun.
I want to drive around and see cows wearing crazy helmets with gas tanks on their back like bovine scuba divers doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455611</id>
	<title>Worse than the cows</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1245869640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What really bugs me is the politicians.  They produce far more methane than cows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What really bugs me is the politicians .
They produce far more methane than cows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really bugs me is the politicians.
They produce far more methane than cows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455955</id>
	<title>I'm ok with it...</title>
	<author>jimbot76</author>
	<datestamp>1245870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...As long as they don't use the same methods <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33600" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">this guy did.</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>...As long as they do n't use the same methods this guy did .
[ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...As long as they don't use the same methods this guy did.
[theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457479</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>hot soldering iron</author>
	<datestamp>1245876840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard about this a "few" years ago... Actually, the reduced methane production is sought after because it's energy wasted, instead of being converted into meat. My uncle has developed a small herd over the last 50 years that puts on 6lbs a day until they reach maturity (the average weight in his herd is over 1200 lbs). A friend of mine said they looked like giant sausages with legs. Selective breeding gave them rapid growth, strength, and a strong immune system (less expensive medications/vaccines). Less flatulence was just a nice side-effect! : )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard about this a " few " years ago... Actually , the reduced methane production is sought after because it 's energy wasted , instead of being converted into meat .
My uncle has developed a small herd over the last 50 years that puts on 6lbs a day until they reach maturity ( the average weight in his herd is over 1200 lbs ) .
A friend of mine said they looked like giant sausages with legs .
Selective breeding gave them rapid growth , strength , and a strong immune system ( less expensive medications/vaccines ) .
Less flatulence was just a nice side-effect !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard about this a "few" years ago... Actually, the reduced methane production is sought after because it's energy wasted, instead of being converted into meat.
My uncle has developed a small herd over the last 50 years that puts on 6lbs a day until they reach maturity (the average weight in his herd is over 1200 lbs).
A friend of mine said they looked like giant sausages with legs.
Selective breeding gave them rapid growth, strength, and a strong immune system (less expensive medications/vaccines).
Less flatulence was just a nice side-effect!
: )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469233</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1245956340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Molecularly identical means it's no different than what's naturally occurring pharmaceutically, but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage. This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone, that the concentrations are much higher than before.</p></div><p> Only in the cow, not in the resulting milk.  The BST increases milk volume, thus diluting out the extra BST.  The net math is 10\% more milk/cow, 0\% increase in BST in the milk, and less tons of feed per unit of milk volume.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'m just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.</p></div><p>There are 2 main types of hormones.  Steroid hormones, which are derivatives of cholesterol and identical across virtually all animal species.  Protein hormones, are the result of protein synthesis, and susceptible to mutation over the eons as speciation occurs, resulting in many hormones serving similar roles in different species, but being dissimilar enough as to not work in even closely related species.  BST falls into the latter category.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So, good, it's not the beef hormones in McD's that's making kids mature faster and get fat, that's just the crap load of fat and calories in it.</p></div><p> <b>BINGO!!</b> </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay, but, I'm still not convinced that's a good idea. Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they're already "in the wild"? This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat. Like, worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I've seen with my own eyes. Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves. Again, not sure why that makes it a good idea.</p></div><p>This is because the issue is more complicated that previously believed.  The original theory behind the ban was that:<br> <br>1. antibiotic use in animals promoted the distribution of resistance genes<br>2. These resistance genes were not wide spread previously because having these genes present in the absence of selective pressure (antibiotics) they were actually a hindrance to the bacteria [like carrying your winter jacket through the dessert, as opposed to wearing it in Alaska]<br>3. By removing the selective pressure (antibiotics) the bacteria without these genes would out compete those bacteria with these genes.<br> <br>That was not what ended up happening.  It turns out that the selective pressure did cause the genes to become more widespread within the animal population, but didn't seem to affect the rate of transmission to human colonizing bacteria.  It also turns out that these genes were not the hindrance that they were expected to be and the incidence of antibiotic resistance genes with in livestock have not changed at all.  The real reason that we have a lot of antibiotic resistance genes in humans is the abuse of antibiotics in humans.  <br> <br>Unfortunately, No one want's to hear that the scape goat you've picked out is innocent, and it's all <b>your</b> fault, especially if you are a politician.  Consequently, you won't be seeing the ban repealed in the EU any time soon.  Despite the overall tonnage of antibiotic use by EU farms is now higher than it was before the ban.  They aren't feeding low doses to young pigs that appear healthy, but are instead feeding much larger doses to pigs of all ages that are obviously sick for a net gain in antibiotic use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Molecularly identical means it 's no different than what 's naturally occurring pharmaceutically , but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage .
This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone , that the concentrations are much higher than before .
Only in the cow , not in the resulting milk .
The BST increases milk volume , thus diluting out the extra BST .
The net math is 10 \ % more milk/cow , 0 \ % increase in BST in the milk , and less tons of feed per unit of milk volume .
'm just cautious around hormones , since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot , and I learned they can be fairly " general " even when using another species ' hormones , but it 's ultimately all about the chemistry that I do n't know and might mean nothing happens.There are 2 main types of hormones .
Steroid hormones , which are derivatives of cholesterol and identical across virtually all animal species .
Protein hormones , are the result of protein synthesis , and susceptible to mutation over the eons as speciation occurs , resulting in many hormones serving similar roles in different species , but being dissimilar enough as to not work in even closely related species .
BST falls into the latter category.So , good , it 's not the beef hormones in McD 's that 's making kids mature faster and get fat , that 's just the crap load of fat and calories in it .
BINGO ! ! Okay , but , I 'm still not convinced that 's a good idea .
Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they 're already " in the wild " ?
This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat .
Like , worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I 've seen with my own eyes .
Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves .
Again , not sure why that makes it a good idea.This is because the issue is more complicated that previously believed .
The original theory behind the ban was that : 1. antibiotic use in animals promoted the distribution of resistance genes2 .
These resistance genes were not wide spread previously because having these genes present in the absence of selective pressure ( antibiotics ) they were actually a hindrance to the bacteria [ like carrying your winter jacket through the dessert , as opposed to wearing it in Alaska ] 3 .
By removing the selective pressure ( antibiotics ) the bacteria without these genes would out compete those bacteria with these genes .
That was not what ended up happening .
It turns out that the selective pressure did cause the genes to become more widespread within the animal population , but did n't seem to affect the rate of transmission to human colonizing bacteria .
It also turns out that these genes were not the hindrance that they were expected to be and the incidence of antibiotic resistance genes with in livestock have not changed at all .
The real reason that we have a lot of antibiotic resistance genes in humans is the abuse of antibiotics in humans .
Unfortunately , No one want 's to hear that the scape goat you 've picked out is innocent , and it 's all your fault , especially if you are a politician .
Consequently , you wo n't be seeing the ban repealed in the EU any time soon .
Despite the overall tonnage of antibiotic use by EU farms is now higher than it was before the ban .
They are n't feeding low doses to young pigs that appear healthy , but are instead feeding much larger doses to pigs of all ages that are obviously sick for a net gain in antibiotic use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Molecularly identical means it's no different than what's naturally occurring pharmaceutically, but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage.
This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone, that the concentrations are much higher than before.
Only in the cow, not in the resulting milk.
The BST increases milk volume, thus diluting out the extra BST.
The net math is 10\% more milk/cow, 0\% increase in BST in the milk, and less tons of feed per unit of milk volume.
'm just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.There are 2 main types of hormones.
Steroid hormones, which are derivatives of cholesterol and identical across virtually all animal species.
Protein hormones, are the result of protein synthesis, and susceptible to mutation over the eons as speciation occurs, resulting in many hormones serving similar roles in different species, but being dissimilar enough as to not work in even closely related species.
BST falls into the latter category.So, good, it's not the beef hormones in McD's that's making kids mature faster and get fat, that's just the crap load of fat and calories in it.
BINGO!! Okay, but, I'm still not convinced that's a good idea.
Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they're already "in the wild"?
This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat.
Like, worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I've seen with my own eyes.
Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves.
Again, not sure why that makes it a good idea.This is because the issue is more complicated that previously believed.
The original theory behind the ban was that: 1. antibiotic use in animals promoted the distribution of resistance genes2.
These resistance genes were not wide spread previously because having these genes present in the absence of selective pressure (antibiotics) they were actually a hindrance to the bacteria [like carrying your winter jacket through the dessert, as opposed to wearing it in Alaska]3.
By removing the selective pressure (antibiotics) the bacteria without these genes would out compete those bacteria with these genes.
That was not what ended up happening.
It turns out that the selective pressure did cause the genes to become more widespread within the animal population, but didn't seem to affect the rate of transmission to human colonizing bacteria.
It also turns out that these genes were not the hindrance that they were expected to be and the incidence of antibiotic resistance genes with in livestock have not changed at all.
The real reason that we have a lot of antibiotic resistance genes in humans is the abuse of antibiotics in humans.
Unfortunately, No one want's to hear that the scape goat you've picked out is innocent, and it's all your fault, especially if you are a politician.
Consequently, you won't be seeing the ban repealed in the EU any time soon.
Despite the overall tonnage of antibiotic use by EU farms is now higher than it was before the ban.
They aren't feeding low doses to young pigs that appear healthy, but are instead feeding much larger doses to pigs of all ages that are obviously sick for a net gain in antibiotic use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245870540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.  And carbon methane only has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 7 years, so the whole "carbon methane is more damaging than CO2" stuff is just complete nonsense.</p><p>The real question we need to ask ourselves is this:</p><p>Why is that we seem to have such a hard time divorcing the science from the politics and pseudoscience?  I'm not one of those "global warming is BS" freaks, but as someone concerened about pollution and the effects of human activities on the ecosphere, I wish we would focus more on science and less on politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral .
And carbon methane only has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 7 years , so the whole " carbon methane is more damaging than CO2 " stuff is just complete nonsense.The real question we need to ask ourselves is this : Why is that we seem to have such a hard time divorcing the science from the politics and pseudoscience ?
I 'm not one of those " global warming is BS " freaks , but as someone concerened about pollution and the effects of human activities on the ecosphere , I wish we would focus more on science and less on politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.
And carbon methane only has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 7 years, so the whole "carbon methane is more damaging than CO2" stuff is just complete nonsense.The real question we need to ask ourselves is this:Why is that we seem to have such a hard time divorcing the science from the politics and pseudoscience?
I'm not one of those "global warming is BS" freaks, but as someone concerened about pollution and the effects of human activities on the ecosphere, I wish we would focus more on science and less on politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458515</id>
	<title>Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny that this got moded up as Interesting rather than Funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny that this got moded up as Interesting rather than Funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny that this got moded up as Interesting rather than Funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460803</id>
	<title>Re:Will this really work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245847860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A cow that burps less will fart more.Unless the methane coming out of the rear is less than the methane coming out of the front, this won't work.</p></div><p>Do you think that the researchers might perhaps have thought of this?  Oh wait, they did - the article talks about reducing the total amount of methane that they produce.  The 'burping less' bit is just the spin that the headline puts on it - they're not simply redirecting the methane from burps to farts.  Only an idiot would think of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A cow that burps less will fart more.Unless the methane coming out of the rear is less than the methane coming out of the front , this wo n't work.Do you think that the researchers might perhaps have thought of this ?
Oh wait , they did - the article talks about reducing the total amount of methane that they produce .
The 'burping less ' bit is just the spin that the headline puts on it - they 're not simply redirecting the methane from burps to farts .
Only an idiot would think of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A cow that burps less will fart more.Unless the methane coming out of the rear is less than the methane coming out of the front, this won't work.Do you think that the researchers might perhaps have thought of this?
Oh wait, they did - the article talks about reducing the total amount of methane that they produce.
The 'burping less' bit is just the spin that the headline puts on it - they're not simply redirecting the methane from burps to farts.
Only an idiot would think of that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28481907</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1246029480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry it took a while to track down a reference.  It's from Elanco (the current manufacturer of Posilac), but the relevant claims were verified by the USDA prior to approving Posliac for use in diary cattle.<p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.
<br> <br>
I've never heard that before, which is a good reason why that hasn't fazed me. If it's true that it doesn't interact with our bodies, than that resolves my concern. It'll take more than a slashdot post to convince me, but I'll keep an eye out. I'm just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.</p></div><p>http://www.elancodairy.com/faqs/fda\_safety.html</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry it took a while to track down a reference .
It 's from Elanco ( the current manufacturer of Posilac ) , but the relevant claims were verified by the USDA prior to approving Posliac for use in diary cattle.The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal ' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason .
I 've never heard that before , which is a good reason why that has n't fazed me .
If it 's true that it does n't interact with our bodies , than that resolves my concern .
It 'll take more than a slashdot post to convince me , but I 'll keep an eye out .
I 'm just cautious around hormones , since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot , and I learned they can be fairly " general " even when using another species ' hormones , but it 's ultimately all about the chemistry that I do n't know and might mean nothing happens.http : //www.elancodairy.com/faqs/fda \ _safety.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry it took a while to track down a reference.
It's from Elanco (the current manufacturer of Posilac), but the relevant claims were verified by the USDA prior to approving Posliac for use in diary cattle.The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.
I've never heard that before, which is a good reason why that hasn't fazed me.
If it's true that it doesn't interact with our bodies, than that resolves my concern.
It'll take more than a slashdot post to convince me, but I'll keep an eye out.
I'm just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.http://www.elancodairy.com/faqs/fda\_safety.html
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1245869160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of how we want to spin it, our world is changing.  Managing those changes before they overwhelm us is important too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of how we want to spin it , our world is changing .
Managing those changes before they overwhelm us is important too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of how we want to spin it, our world is changing.
Managing those changes before they overwhelm us is important too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455659</id>
	<title>I for one.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or you could have cows <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=2&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fnews.yahoo.com\%2Fs\%2Fap\%2F20090621\%2Fap\_on\_re\_us\%2Fus\_burpless\_cows&amp;ei=bWJCSvPTJJ-yMePipcIH&amp;usg=AFQjCNGzyhgfq6GZMuPhu4hCGm5Wba4iFw" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">eat grass</a> [google.com] which does the same thing, and has nutritional benefits for the consumer.  I know, it's radical.</p></div><p>as a representative of the corn lobby would like to be the first to say.......HERETIC!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could have cows eat grass [ google.com ] which does the same thing , and has nutritional benefits for the consumer .
I know , it 's radical.as a representative of the corn lobby would like to be the first to say.......HERETIC !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could have cows eat grass [google.com] which does the same thing, and has nutritional benefits for the consumer.
I know, it's radical.as a representative of the corn lobby would like to be the first to say.......HERETIC!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459811</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245842760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try substituting "humans" for "cows" in your comment and "petrol exhaust" for "methane" and see if it makes any sense.  (Hint: it doesn't.)  Animals are not simply interchangeable, and the global mammal population is not a zero-growth, zero-sum phenomenon.  Humans are cultivating additional animals to feed on at rate comparable to their own exponential growth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try substituting " humans " for " cows " in your comment and " petrol exhaust " for " methane " and see if it makes any sense .
( Hint : it does n't .
) Animals are not simply interchangeable , and the global mammal population is not a zero-growth , zero-sum phenomenon .
Humans are cultivating additional animals to feed on at rate comparable to their own exponential growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try substituting "humans" for "cows" in your comment and "petrol exhaust" for "methane" and see if it makes any sense.
(Hint: it doesn't.
)  Animals are not simply interchangeable, and the global mammal population is not a zero-growth, zero-sum phenomenon.
Humans are cultivating additional animals to feed on at rate comparable to their own exponential growth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456877</id>
	<title>Re:Junk science behind the grass</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245874440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. Less milk. But at least it IS still milk. And not that strange stuff tasting like hay and barns.<br>I know, because I can always detect when something is wrong with the milk I'm drinking.<br>Grass milk tastes much better, and is more full (also of vitamins). Skimmed milk also tastes bad. Like a protein shake or something strangely chemical.<br>And UHT-milk is the worst. Chemically, it is no milk anymore at all. It literally is a shake of water and completely destroyed molecules that once were proteins and vitamins.<br>The worst scam is the new "longer fresh" milk. It's essentially re-labeled UHT milk, heated with a new method. It still tastes like crap, but they can sell it at the price of fresh milk. (Who should be cheaper, because it does not need to be processed that much.)</p><p>So by selling hay milk of those extreme milk machines who should not called "cows" anymore, they are essentially scamming people in a criminal way, and should be thrown into prison, for endangering the health of millions, and cheating them out of their hard earned money, bug selling them the equivalent of glass pearls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Less milk .
But at least it IS still milk .
And not that strange stuff tasting like hay and barns.I know , because I can always detect when something is wrong with the milk I 'm drinking.Grass milk tastes much better , and is more full ( also of vitamins ) .
Skimmed milk also tastes bad .
Like a protein shake or something strangely chemical.And UHT-milk is the worst .
Chemically , it is no milk anymore at all .
It literally is a shake of water and completely destroyed molecules that once were proteins and vitamins.The worst scam is the new " longer fresh " milk .
It 's essentially re-labeled UHT milk , heated with a new method .
It still tastes like crap , but they can sell it at the price of fresh milk .
( Who should be cheaper , because it does not need to be processed that much .
) So by selling hay milk of those extreme milk machines who should not called " cows " anymore , they are essentially scamming people in a criminal way , and should be thrown into prison , for endangering the health of millions , and cheating them out of their hard earned money , bug selling them the equivalent of glass pearls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Less milk.
But at least it IS still milk.
And not that strange stuff tasting like hay and barns.I know, because I can always detect when something is wrong with the milk I'm drinking.Grass milk tastes much better, and is more full (also of vitamins).
Skimmed milk also tastes bad.
Like a protein shake or something strangely chemical.And UHT-milk is the worst.
Chemically, it is no milk anymore at all.
It literally is a shake of water and completely destroyed molecules that once were proteins and vitamins.The worst scam is the new "longer fresh" milk.
It's essentially re-labeled UHT milk, heated with a new method.
It still tastes like crap, but they can sell it at the price of fresh milk.
(Who should be cheaper, because it does not need to be processed that much.
)So by selling hay milk of those extreme milk machines who should not called "cows" anymore, they are essentially scamming people in a criminal way, and should be thrown into prison, for endangering the health of millions, and cheating them out of their hard earned money, bug selling them the equivalent of glass pearls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455369</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1245868920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But there are many more cows per square kilometer in farm land than there are other animals.<br> <br>
Furthermore. Most animals don't have the 4 stomach system using anaerobic bacterial digestion. That's what makes the methane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But there are many more cows per square kilometer in farm land than there are other animals .
Furthermore. Most animals do n't have the 4 stomach system using anaerobic bacterial digestion .
That 's what makes the methane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there are many more cows per square kilometer in farm land than there are other animals.
Furthermore. Most animals don't have the 4 stomach system using anaerobic bacterial digestion.
That's what makes the methane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not to worried about the cows anyway.</p><p>There have been animals around on earth a long time, and the cows are likely to be pushing away some other species, but overall the methane release into the atmosphere wouldn't be that different throughout history.</p><p>An attack on animals farting seems to be plain stupid related to so many other factors involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not to worried about the cows anyway.There have been animals around on earth a long time , and the cows are likely to be pushing away some other species , but overall the methane release into the atmosphere would n't be that different throughout history.An attack on animals farting seems to be plain stupid related to so many other factors involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not to worried about the cows anyway.There have been animals around on earth a long time, and the cows are likely to be pushing away some other species, but overall the methane release into the atmosphere wouldn't be that different throughout history.An attack on animals farting seems to be plain stupid related to so many other factors involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455769</id>
	<title>Re:Meat Vats</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1245870060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient.</p></div> </blockquote><p>OK, figure out how to do this with less energy input and at comparable cost to growing the meat on the cow.  Oh, and figure out how to make the meat taste right while you're at it.  And do the same for the milk.</p><p>A cow is a very complex machine which turns vegetable matter into meat.  Doing the same thing artificially (even using actual bovine cells) is not likely to be easy, and doing it as efficiently as the cow does is going to be even harder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient .
OK , figure out how to do this with less energy input and at comparable cost to growing the meat on the cow .
Oh , and figure out how to make the meat taste right while you 're at it .
And do the same for the milk.A cow is a very complex machine which turns vegetable matter into meat .
Doing the same thing artificially ( even using actual bovine cells ) is not likely to be easy , and doing it as efficiently as the cow does is going to be even harder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use special meat vats that grow cloned tissue in a special nutrient.
OK, figure out how to do this with less energy input and at comparable cost to growing the meat on the cow.
Oh, and figure out how to make the meat taste right while you're at it.
And do the same for the milk.A cow is a very complex machine which turns vegetable matter into meat.
Doing the same thing artificially (even using actual bovine cells) is not likely to be easy, and doing it as efficiently as the cow does is going to be even harder.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457495</id>
	<title>Uh-oh</title>
	<author>Utopia Tree</author>
	<datestamp>1245876840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it doesn't come out the front end...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it does n't come out the front end.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it doesn't come out the front end...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28466813</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>PhotoGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245946980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ruminants are a relatively development on the evolutionary tree.</p></div></blockquote><p>And even more unbelievable, is the fact that they the whole thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ruminants are a relatively development on the evolutionary tree.And even more unbelievable , is the fact that they the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ruminants are a relatively development on the evolutionary tree.And even more unbelievable, is the fact that they the whole thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456219</id>
	<title>Re:Will this really work?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you just hang lighters off their rears, and burn any of the methane they produce?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you just hang lighters off their rears , and burn any of the methane they produce ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you just hang lighters off their rears, and burn any of the methane they produce?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456127</id>
	<title>Why not take half a million cars out of the road?</title>
	<author>menkhaura</author>
	<datestamp>1245871380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not take half a million cars out of the road? In Brasilia (Brazil's capital, and not the largest city by a long shot), we have more than a million cars for a population of just over two million people. Sao Paulo, Brazil's largest city and one of the largest in the world, had a fleet of more than 4 million automobiles in 2003; the whole country had 37 million automobiles in 2003. USA, being the strongest economy, must dwarf this number. Surely the world could live with half a million automobiles fewer in each city that has a fleet of, say, more than a million, and just leave the poor ruminants alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not take half a million cars out of the road ?
In Brasilia ( Brazil 's capital , and not the largest city by a long shot ) , we have more than a million cars for a population of just over two million people .
Sao Paulo , Brazil 's largest city and one of the largest in the world , had a fleet of more than 4 million automobiles in 2003 ; the whole country had 37 million automobiles in 2003 .
USA , being the strongest economy , must dwarf this number .
Surely the world could live with half a million automobiles fewer in each city that has a fleet of , say , more than a million , and just leave the poor ruminants alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not take half a million cars out of the road?
In Brasilia (Brazil's capital, and not the largest city by a long shot), we have more than a million cars for a population of just over two million people.
Sao Paulo, Brazil's largest city and one of the largest in the world, had a fleet of more than 4 million automobiles in 2003; the whole country had 37 million automobiles in 2003.
USA, being the strongest economy, must dwarf this number.
Surely the world could live with half a million automobiles fewer in each city that has a fleet of, say, more than a million, and just leave the poor ruminants alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458801</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't this go away?</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1245838320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I swear this is this most asinine thing around in the man made climate change circles.</i></p><p>I'd say it's more bovine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear this is this most asinine thing around in the man made climate change circles.I 'd say it 's more bovine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear this is this most asinine thing around in the man made climate change circles.I'd say it's more bovine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456707</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1245873660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a related story Ingrid Newkirk, the diabetic president of PETA who requires insulin produced by slaughtering sheep, has pledged that all PETA members (except her of course) will shove corks up their asses in an effort contain their collective human-emitted greenhouse gases.</p><p>"</p><p>Give a hoot, don't toot!" is submitted as the slogan and will be featured in their new television campaign.</p><p>"We hope this will serve as a model of human behavior for the entire world. A cork in every ass,"  smiled Newkirk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a related story Ingrid Newkirk , the diabetic president of PETA who requires insulin produced by slaughtering sheep , has pledged that all PETA members ( except her of course ) will shove corks up their asses in an effort contain their collective human-emitted greenhouse gases .
" Give a hoot , do n't toot !
" is submitted as the slogan and will be featured in their new television campaign .
" We hope this will serve as a model of human behavior for the entire world .
A cork in every ass , " smiled Newkirk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a related story Ingrid Newkirk, the diabetic president of PETA who requires insulin produced by slaughtering sheep, has pledged that all PETA members (except her of course) will shove corks up their asses in an effort contain their collective human-emitted greenhouse gases.
"Give a hoot, don't toot!
" is submitted as the slogan and will be featured in their new television campaign.
"We hope this will serve as a model of human behavior for the entire world.
A cork in every ass,"  smiled Newkirk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456137</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1245871440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen up numbskulls, cows belching/farting aren't a problem.</p><p>Even if you buy the CO2 == Global Warming theory, and the debate on that that is far from decided, cows aren't a problem.  The whole carbon theory rests on the release of long sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere.  And that much has both science and common sense to back it, extracting and burning billions of tons of hydrocarbons has increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere.</p><p>Cows are eating plant (and other stuff you really don't want to know about) matter which fixed carbon out of the environment recently.  They belch/fart/poop most of it right back into the circle of life where it goes round and round.  Not a problem except to the extent fossil fuels are powering much of the cycle in the form of fertilizer to grow feed, move the cows/meat around, etc. but those are general problems with dependency on hydrocarbons that have been buried for millions of years.</p><p>Some enviro whack jobs say the methane is a 'greenhouse gas' but that is hard to buy since it is less than two parts per million currently.  Even if we take the "twenty times the greenhouse effect as CO2" at face value that works out to rounding error compared to all of the other factors that influence the global environment.</p><p>So go have some cow and don't let the greens lay yet another guilt trip on you.  Beef: It's what's for dinner!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen up numbskulls , cows belching/farting are n't a problem.Even if you buy the CO2 = = Global Warming theory , and the debate on that that is far from decided , cows are n't a problem .
The whole carbon theory rests on the release of long sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere .
And that much has both science and common sense to back it , extracting and burning billions of tons of hydrocarbons has increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere.Cows are eating plant ( and other stuff you really do n't want to know about ) matter which fixed carbon out of the environment recently .
They belch/fart/poop most of it right back into the circle of life where it goes round and round .
Not a problem except to the extent fossil fuels are powering much of the cycle in the form of fertilizer to grow feed , move the cows/meat around , etc .
but those are general problems with dependency on hydrocarbons that have been buried for millions of years.Some enviro whack jobs say the methane is a 'greenhouse gas ' but that is hard to buy since it is less than two parts per million currently .
Even if we take the " twenty times the greenhouse effect as CO2 " at face value that works out to rounding error compared to all of the other factors that influence the global environment.So go have some cow and do n't let the greens lay yet another guilt trip on you .
Beef : It 's what 's for dinner !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen up numbskulls, cows belching/farting aren't a problem.Even if you buy the CO2 == Global Warming theory, and the debate on that that is far from decided, cows aren't a problem.
The whole carbon theory rests on the release of long sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere.
And that much has both science and common sense to back it, extracting and burning billions of tons of hydrocarbons has increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere.Cows are eating plant (and other stuff you really don't want to know about) matter which fixed carbon out of the environment recently.
They belch/fart/poop most of it right back into the circle of life where it goes round and round.
Not a problem except to the extent fossil fuels are powering much of the cycle in the form of fertilizer to grow feed, move the cows/meat around, etc.
but those are general problems with dependency on hydrocarbons that have been buried for millions of years.Some enviro whack jobs say the methane is a 'greenhouse gas' but that is hard to buy since it is less than two parts per million currently.
Even if we take the "twenty times the greenhouse effect as CO2" at face value that works out to rounding error compared to all of the other factors that influence the global environment.So go have some cow and don't let the greens lay yet another guilt trip on you.
Beef: It's what's for dinner!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456353</id>
	<title>Re:Meat Vats</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1245872280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NASA's already done it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NASA 's already done it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASA's already done it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455191</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cows... Stonyfield... anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cows... Stonyfield... anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cows... Stonyfield... anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455317</id>
	<title>Use it</title>
	<author>edivad</author>
	<datestamp>1245868740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just use the darn methane do power your farm. Problem solved!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use the darn methane do power your farm .
Problem solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use the darn methane do power your farm.
Problem solved!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469091</id>
	<title>Re:I'm very tired of global warming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245955860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are -really- overstating the case.  There are some very respectable scientists that have serious doubts that 'man caused' climate change is happening.  I don't doubt that the climate -is- changing, but the debate is far from over as to why</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are -really- overstating the case .
There are some very respectable scientists that have serious doubts that 'man caused ' climate change is happening .
I do n't doubt that the climate -is- changing , but the debate is far from over as to why</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are -really- overstating the case.
There are some very respectable scientists that have serious doubts that 'man caused' climate change is happening.
I don't doubt that the climate -is- changing, but the debate is far from over as to why</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045</id>
	<title>Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245867900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or we could raise and eat fewer cows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we could raise and eat fewer cows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or we could raise and eat fewer cows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463527</id>
	<title>Re:Grass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245873300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of grass, can I sell the grass I have after I mow my lawn to farmers? I mean a garbage bag or two of grass should be worth a few dollars, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of grass , can I sell the grass I have after I mow my lawn to farmers ?
I mean a garbage bag or two of grass should be worth a few dollars , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of grass, can I sell the grass I have after I mow my lawn to farmers?
I mean a garbage bag or two of grass should be worth a few dollars, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455673</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Jonathan</author>
	<datestamp>1245869820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) As people have already said, there weren't *nearly* as many cows around before we started making them a major part of our diet<br>2) The cows that *were* around ate grass. Feeding cows corn, as farmers tend to do, fattens them up but gives them much more gas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) As people have already said , there were n't * nearly * as many cows around before we started making them a major part of our diet2 ) The cows that * were * around ate grass .
Feeding cows corn , as farmers tend to do , fattens them up but gives them much more gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) As people have already said, there weren't *nearly* as many cows around before we started making them a major part of our diet2) The cows that *were* around ate grass.
Feeding cows corn, as farmers tend to do, fattens them up but gives them much more gas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456911</id>
	<title>Re:Feed them what nature intended</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, the corn lobbies have done more harm than anything else.  Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives back, high fructose corn syrup, poor feed for livestock, and it's not even all that nutritious for humans either.  The energy return on corn is not that great (eg. food or burning, it's a poor energy source).  Plus numerous other issues.</p><p>Screw the greedy corn lobbies that have abused their power to continue this for so long.  Farmers need to replant with more useful crops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , the corn lobbies have done more harm than anything else .
Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives back , high fructose corn syrup , poor feed for livestock , and it 's not even all that nutritious for humans either .
The energy return on corn is not that great ( eg .
food or burning , it 's a poor energy source ) .
Plus numerous other issues.Screw the greedy corn lobbies that have abused their power to continue this for so long .
Farmers need to replant with more useful crops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, the corn lobbies have done more harm than anything else.
Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives back, high fructose corn syrup, poor feed for livestock, and it's not even all that nutritious for humans either.
The energy return on corn is not that great (eg.
food or burning, it's a poor energy source).
Plus numerous other issues.Screw the greedy corn lobbies that have abused their power to continue this for so long.
Farmers need to replant with more useful crops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459715</id>
	<title>Can Anything Digest Corn?</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1245842220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I sure can't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I sure ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I sure can't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457309</id>
	<title>Ok, but how do they taste?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1245876120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cows that burp less sounds good to me.  My only question is how do they taste?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cows that burp less sounds good to me .
My only question is how do they taste ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cows that burp less sounds good to me.
My only question is how do they taste?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455327</id>
	<title>Bending evolution to suit us :)</title>
	<author>hh4m</author>
	<datestamp>1245868800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>so it seems natural evolution of the cows ended a long time ago, now the are bein modified and wil eventually evolve with respect to their usability to us instead of the default survival if the fittest!</htmltext>
<tokenext>so it seems natural evolution of the cows ended a long time ago , now the are bein modified and wil eventually evolve with respect to their usability to us instead of the default survival if the fittest !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so it seems natural evolution of the cows ended a long time ago, now the are bein modified and wil eventually evolve with respect to their usability to us instead of the default survival if the fittest!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069</id>
	<title>Bad article.  This entire subject is FUD.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cows do not produce 75\% of total methane emissions.  It goes<br>1. Wetlands<br>2. Rice fields<br>3. Ruminants</p><p>You don't here a lot about altering or doing away with 1 or 2.  The oceans are also major contributors.  Lets keep those too.</p><p>A major point that is never mentioned in these articles is that all of the methane generated by ruminants is from carbon that is already in the carbon cycle. The half a million cars that are "displaced" are generating their methane from carbon previously sequestered in fossil fuels.  Additionally the current American cattle herd is around 100 million and declining.  About were some estimates put the bison herd in the 1800s.</p><p>There is plenty wrong with our current system of agriculture.  The environmental aspect of it can be dealt with by more informed farmers and consumers.  We need to move away from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and corn culture and towards sustainable local farms.  The article states that animals should be fed a higher energy diet (i.e. corn).  The energy costs of producing that diet are astronomical as compared to a grass fed diet.  The number one energy cost in producing a lb of corn is the Natural gas it takes to make the synthetic fertilizer.  Guess what, the extraction of natural gas is an major methane contributor.</p><p>Lets put our focus on producing our food in a more sensible manner.  People intuitively know that cows as a methane source is ridiculous hence the jokes.  There are so many bigger environmental and ethical problems that we need to tackle in our food industry.  Its these half truths get people side tracked away from the real issues.  Go meet your farmer and make sure he's raising your food in a manner that you deem acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cows do not produce 75 \ % of total methane emissions .
It goes1 .
Wetlands2. Rice fields3 .
RuminantsYou do n't here a lot about altering or doing away with 1 or 2 .
The oceans are also major contributors .
Lets keep those too.A major point that is never mentioned in these articles is that all of the methane generated by ruminants is from carbon that is already in the carbon cycle .
The half a million cars that are " displaced " are generating their methane from carbon previously sequestered in fossil fuels .
Additionally the current American cattle herd is around 100 million and declining .
About were some estimates put the bison herd in the 1800s.There is plenty wrong with our current system of agriculture .
The environmental aspect of it can be dealt with by more informed farmers and consumers .
We need to move away from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ( CAFOs ) and corn culture and towards sustainable local farms .
The article states that animals should be fed a higher energy diet ( i.e .
corn ) . The energy costs of producing that diet are astronomical as compared to a grass fed diet .
The number one energy cost in producing a lb of corn is the Natural gas it takes to make the synthetic fertilizer .
Guess what , the extraction of natural gas is an major methane contributor.Lets put our focus on producing our food in a more sensible manner .
People intuitively know that cows as a methane source is ridiculous hence the jokes .
There are so many bigger environmental and ethical problems that we need to tackle in our food industry .
Its these half truths get people side tracked away from the real issues .
Go meet your farmer and make sure he 's raising your food in a manner that you deem acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cows do not produce 75\% of total methane emissions.
It goes1.
Wetlands2. Rice fields3.
RuminantsYou don't here a lot about altering or doing away with 1 or 2.
The oceans are also major contributors.
Lets keep those too.A major point that is never mentioned in these articles is that all of the methane generated by ruminants is from carbon that is already in the carbon cycle.
The half a million cars that are "displaced" are generating their methane from carbon previously sequestered in fossil fuels.
Additionally the current American cattle herd is around 100 million and declining.
About were some estimates put the bison herd in the 1800s.There is plenty wrong with our current system of agriculture.
The environmental aspect of it can be dealt with by more informed farmers and consumers.
We need to move away from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and corn culture and towards sustainable local farms.
The article states that animals should be fed a higher energy diet (i.e.
corn).  The energy costs of producing that diet are astronomical as compared to a grass fed diet.
The number one energy cost in producing a lb of corn is the Natural gas it takes to make the synthetic fertilizer.
Guess what, the extraction of natural gas is an major methane contributor.Lets put our focus on producing our food in a more sensible manner.
People intuitively know that cows as a methane source is ridiculous hence the jokes.
There are so many bigger environmental and ethical problems that we need to tackle in our food industry.
Its these half truths get people side tracked away from the real issues.
Go meet your farmer and make sure he's raising your food in a manner that you deem acceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457969</id>
	<title>Burpless cows?</title>
	<author>pitterpatter</author>
	<datestamp>1245835500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA seems to me almost to have been written by an illiterate, except of course that by definition illiterates can't write.</p><p>
First of all, the first sentence sounds like complete bullshit, unless of course it's followed by a second sentence something like: "Bulls and steers and grandparents are responsible for the rest,"  which would make it clear that we're talking about some restricted subset of all methane generated and/or released throughout the world.
</p><p>
Also, I have compelling reason to believe that none of the methane on Titan was generated by cows.
</p><p>
I call FUD on the whole article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA seems to me almost to have been written by an illiterate , except of course that by definition illiterates ca n't write .
First of all , the first sentence sounds like complete bullshit , unless of course it 's followed by a second sentence something like : " Bulls and steers and grandparents are responsible for the rest , " which would make it clear that we 're talking about some restricted subset of all methane generated and/or released throughout the world .
Also , I have compelling reason to believe that none of the methane on Titan was generated by cows .
I call FUD on the whole article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA seems to me almost to have been written by an illiterate, except of course that by definition illiterates can't write.
First of all, the first sentence sounds like complete bullshit, unless of course it's followed by a second sentence something like: "Bulls and steers and grandparents are responsible for the rest,"  which would make it clear that we're talking about some restricted subset of all methane generated and/or released throughout the world.
Also, I have compelling reason to believe that none of the methane on Titan was generated by cows.
I call FUD on the whole article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455221</id>
	<title>Why doesn't this go away?</title>
	<author>NekSnappa</author>
	<datestamp>1245868440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I swear this is this most asinine thing around in the man made climate change circles. And yet it comes up again and again!
</p><p>There are environmental issues with industrial livestock production. I just don't think this has a big enough impact on the environment to warrant the effort put into it.
</p><p>As some one who lives in So. Maryland and enjoys kayaking in the Chesapeake Bay watershed I'm much more concerned with the nitrogen run-off from all of the poultry farms on the eastern shore. But Tyson, Purdue, etc. have such a large lobby (money wise at least) There won't be too much done about it.
</p><p>Not to say that the Bay hasn't gotten healthier in the 25 years I've been living here. But between agricultural run-off and turning wetlands into housing developments it's not as good as it could be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear this is this most asinine thing around in the man made climate change circles .
And yet it comes up again and again !
There are environmental issues with industrial livestock production .
I just do n't think this has a big enough impact on the environment to warrant the effort put into it .
As some one who lives in So .
Maryland and enjoys kayaking in the Chesapeake Bay watershed I 'm much more concerned with the nitrogen run-off from all of the poultry farms on the eastern shore .
But Tyson , Purdue , etc .
have such a large lobby ( money wise at least ) There wo n't be too much done about it .
Not to say that the Bay has n't gotten healthier in the 25 years I 've been living here .
But between agricultural run-off and turning wetlands into housing developments it 's not as good as it could be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear this is this most asinine thing around in the man made climate change circles.
And yet it comes up again and again!
There are environmental issues with industrial livestock production.
I just don't think this has a big enough impact on the environment to warrant the effort put into it.
As some one who lives in So.
Maryland and enjoys kayaking in the Chesapeake Bay watershed I'm much more concerned with the nitrogen run-off from all of the poultry farms on the eastern shore.
But Tyson, Purdue, etc.
have such a large lobby (money wise at least) There won't be too much done about it.
Not to say that the Bay hasn't gotten healthier in the 25 years I've been living here.
But between agricultural run-off and turning wetlands into housing developments it's not as good as it could be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455865</id>
	<title>Re:Grass</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1245870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA, that's exactly what they're suggesting, in addition to breeding out the genes that make them overproduce methane.  In fact, read your own link, too, because it suggests creating new bacteria that don't make as much methane, which is a bit more radical than simple selective breeding...</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA , that 's exactly what they 're suggesting , in addition to breeding out the genes that make them overproduce methane .
In fact , read your own link , too , because it suggests creating new bacteria that do n't make as much methane , which is a bit more radical than simple selective breeding.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA, that's exactly what they're suggesting, in addition to breeding out the genes that make them overproduce methane.
In fact, read your own link, too, because it suggests creating new bacteria that don't make as much methane, which is a bit more radical than simple selective breeding...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457797</id>
	<title>This is "insightful"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245834780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding, our world is changing. News at 11. However, the implication here is that the methane is causing "global warming", hence, the change.</p><p>Fact: while CO2 and methane have been increasing, global temperatures have been dropping for the last 9 years.</p><p>How is that possible? Easy. Global warming is not caused by humans. It's caused by that gigantic thermonuclear ball of fire in the sky. Read up on "cloud chambers" and the sun's magnetic field and what that has been doing for the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding , our world is changing .
News at 11 .
However , the implication here is that the methane is causing " global warming " , hence , the change.Fact : while CO2 and methane have been increasing , global temperatures have been dropping for the last 9 years.How is that possible ?
Easy. Global warming is not caused by humans .
It 's caused by that gigantic thermonuclear ball of fire in the sky .
Read up on " cloud chambers " and the sun 's magnetic field and what that has been doing for the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding, our world is changing.
News at 11.
However, the implication here is that the methane is causing "global warming", hence, the change.Fact: while CO2 and methane have been increasing, global temperatures have been dropping for the last 9 years.How is that possible?
Easy. Global warming is not caused by humans.
It's caused by that gigantic thermonuclear ball of fire in the sky.
Read up on "cloud chambers" and the sun's magnetic field and what that has been doing for the last decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</id>
	<title>Grass</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1245868260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you could have cows <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=2&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fnews.yahoo.com\%2Fs\%2Fap\%2F20090621\%2Fap\_on\_re\_us\%2Fus\_burpless\_cows&amp;ei=bWJCSvPTJJ-yMePipcIH&amp;usg=AFQjCNGzyhgfq6GZMuPhu4hCGm5Wba4iFw" title="google.com">eat grass</a> [google.com] which does the same thing, and has nutritional benefits for the consumer.  I know, it's radical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could have cows eat grass [ google.com ] which does the same thing , and has nutritional benefits for the consumer .
I know , it 's radical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could have cows eat grass [google.com] which does the same thing, and has nutritional benefits for the consumer.
I know, it's radical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455711</id>
	<title>Junk science behind the grass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The science behind such a change is unconvincing as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.  Dairy cattle on a grass diet produce less milk over their lifetime; I know, I had a neighbor who ran a grazing herd for a while, so that has to be considered.  And the indirect measures for methane emissions they use are weakly correlated. Measuring the actual methane output from a cow in a typical farm setting is not technologically feasible.</p><p>To be sure, there are other environmental benefits, chiefly involving soil conservation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The science behind such a change is unconvincing as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned .
Dairy cattle on a grass diet produce less milk over their lifetime ; I know , I had a neighbor who ran a grazing herd for a while , so that has to be considered .
And the indirect measures for methane emissions they use are weakly correlated .
Measuring the actual methane output from a cow in a typical farm setting is not technologically feasible.To be sure , there are other environmental benefits , chiefly involving soil conservation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The science behind such a change is unconvincing as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
Dairy cattle on a grass diet produce less milk over their lifetime; I know, I had a neighbor who ran a grazing herd for a while, so that has to be considered.
And the indirect measures for methane emissions they use are weakly correlated.
Measuring the actual methane output from a cow in a typical farm setting is not technologically feasible.To be sure, there are other environmental benefits, chiefly involving soil conservation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463863</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245920460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This still makes it not a cow problem.<br>The co2 and methane that are released within the ecosystem are a result of a logistical problem, amongst other things.</p><p>Also I find it hard to believe that the fuel and fertilizer would not be used if all cow farms would turn biofarm.<br>Earth people seem hell bend on burning every last drop of non neutral fossil fuel we can get to our refineries.</p><p>The trouble begins when people suggest that on top of our silly self-destructive behaviour, cow are contributing in addition to our carbon output.<br>They are either part of the same problem by what we put into them. The fuel will be bruned and if this is via cow, car or korn transport, the cow itself isn't the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This still makes it not a cow problem.The co2 and methane that are released within the ecosystem are a result of a logistical problem , amongst other things.Also I find it hard to believe that the fuel and fertilizer would not be used if all cow farms would turn biofarm.Earth people seem hell bend on burning every last drop of non neutral fossil fuel we can get to our refineries.The trouble begins when people suggest that on top of our silly self-destructive behaviour , cow are contributing in addition to our carbon output.They are either part of the same problem by what we put into them .
The fuel will be bruned and if this is via cow , car or korn transport , the cow itself is n't the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This still makes it not a cow problem.The co2 and methane that are released within the ecosystem are a result of a logistical problem, amongst other things.Also I find it hard to believe that the fuel and fertilizer would not be used if all cow farms would turn biofarm.Earth people seem hell bend on burning every last drop of non neutral fossil fuel we can get to our refineries.The trouble begins when people suggest that on top of our silly self-destructive behaviour, cow are contributing in addition to our carbon output.They are either part of the same problem by what we put into them.
The fuel will be bruned and if this is via cow, car or korn transport, the cow itself isn't the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28467927</id>
	<title>or you could just change the feed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245951660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap\_on\_re\_us/us\_burpless\_cows" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">13\% to 18\% reduction</a> [yahoo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>13 \ % to 18 \ % reduction [ yahoo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>13\% to 18\% reduction [yahoo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455669</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't this posted as "Idle"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't this posted as " Idle " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't this posted as "Idle"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455885</id>
	<title>Re:Will this really work?</title>
	<author>Janeshat</author>
	<datestamp>1245870420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you need to learn cow biology and read the article before you post. you will sound less ignorant then.</p><p>Cows belch more than they fart because of their digestive system, so any gas will be belched more than farted.</p><p>Plus TFA is about lowing methane levels in the digestive system, not about making them fart or belch less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you need to learn cow biology and read the article before you post .
you will sound less ignorant then.Cows belch more than they fart because of their digestive system , so any gas will be belched more than farted.Plus TFA is about lowing methane levels in the digestive system , not about making them fart or belch less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need to learn cow biology and read the article before you post.
you will sound less ignorant then.Cows belch more than they fart because of their digestive system, so any gas will be belched more than farted.Plus TFA is about lowing methane levels in the digestive system, not about making them fart or belch less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458217</id>
	<title>Persnicket alert ... it's not the burping</title>
	<author>quixote9</author>
	<datestamp>1245836400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cows fart methane much more than they burp it.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for Slashdot maintaining a genteel tone in its titles.  So, herewith, the improved version: "Cows that let out less methane to be cabbage patched."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cows fart methane much more than they burp it .
Do n't get me wrong .
I 'm all for Slashdot maintaining a genteel tone in its titles .
So , herewith , the improved version : " Cows that let out less methane to be cabbage patched .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cows fart methane much more than they burp it.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm all for Slashdot maintaining a genteel tone in its titles.
So, herewith, the improved version: "Cows that let out less methane to be cabbage patched.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457145</id>
	<title>Neigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245875400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's one of the reasons why I prefer horse meat (plus it's yummy and extremely lean).<br>I'm not opposed to eating cow, pig or chicken, but mass-producing (essentially) only two or three kinds of animal on the scale that we currently are doing just doesn't seem like a very good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one of the reasons why I prefer horse meat ( plus it 's yummy and extremely lean ) .I 'm not opposed to eating cow , pig or chicken , but mass-producing ( essentially ) only two or three kinds of animal on the scale that we currently are doing just does n't seem like a very good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one of the reasons why I prefer horse meat (plus it's yummy and extremely lean).I'm not opposed to eating cow, pig or chicken, but mass-producing (essentially) only two or three kinds of animal on the scale that we currently are doing just doesn't seem like a very good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28464405</id>
	<title>Re:United States asked to bear the burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245927540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zero millions of cars. Scrubbers remove particulate matter and certain non-CO2 gasses , not CO2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zero millions of cars .
Scrubbers remove particulate matter and certain non-CO2 gasses , not CO2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zero millions of cars.
Scrubbers remove particulate matter and certain non-CO2 gasses , not CO2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455309</id>
	<title>Embargo!</title>
	<author>SoundGuyNoise</author>
	<datestamp>1245868740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without methane, who will run Bartertown?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without methane , who will run Bartertown ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without methane, who will run Bartertown?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455379</id>
	<title>Already reducing the number of cattle in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would seem that we've already greatly reduced the amount of cattle in the United States.  From one estimate, there could have been upwards of 200million bison/buffalo:  <a href="http://www.emporia.edu/cgps/tales/BISON.htm" title="emporia.edu">http://www.emporia.edu/cgps/tales/BISON.htm</a> [emporia.edu]</p><p>Compare this with the 2002 Census of Cattle and Calves in 2002: <a href="http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/atlas02/Livestock/Cattle/Cattle\%20and\%20Calves/Cattle\%20and\%20Calves\%20-\%20Inventory.gif" title="usda.gov">http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/atlas02/Livestock/Cattle/Cattle\%20and\%20Calves/Cattle\%20and\%20Calves\%20-\%20Inventory.gif</a> [usda.gov]</p><p>I actually love seeing quotes like, "If every US dairy farmer reduced emissions by 12 per cent it would be equal to about half a million cars being taken off the road." Because it makes it seem like it would be easier to genetically breed "low emission cows" then it would be to take cars off the road.  It almost implies that if we reduced enough greenhouse gasses from non-automotive sources we could go back to black smog belching cars/trucks/SUVs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem that we 've already greatly reduced the amount of cattle in the United States .
From one estimate , there could have been upwards of 200million bison/buffalo : http : //www.emporia.edu/cgps/tales/BISON.htm [ emporia.edu ] Compare this with the 2002 Census of Cattle and Calves in 2002 : http : //www.nass.usda.gov/research/atlas02/Livestock/Cattle/Cattle \ % 20and \ % 20Calves/Cattle \ % 20and \ % 20Calves \ % 20- \ % 20Inventory.gif [ usda.gov ] I actually love seeing quotes like , " If every US dairy farmer reduced emissions by 12 per cent it would be equal to about half a million cars being taken off the road .
" Because it makes it seem like it would be easier to genetically breed " low emission cows " then it would be to take cars off the road .
It almost implies that if we reduced enough greenhouse gasses from non-automotive sources we could go back to black smog belching cars/trucks/SUVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem that we've already greatly reduced the amount of cattle in the United States.
From one estimate, there could have been upwards of 200million bison/buffalo:  http://www.emporia.edu/cgps/tales/BISON.htm [emporia.edu]Compare this with the 2002 Census of Cattle and Calves in 2002: http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/atlas02/Livestock/Cattle/Cattle\%20and\%20Calves/Cattle\%20and\%20Calves\%20-\%20Inventory.gif [usda.gov]I actually love seeing quotes like, "If every US dairy farmer reduced emissions by 12 per cent it would be equal to about half a million cars being taken off the road.
" Because it makes it seem like it would be easier to genetically breed "low emission cows" then it would be to take cars off the road.
It almost implies that if we reduced enough greenhouse gasses from non-automotive sources we could go back to black smog belching cars/trucks/SUVs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457983</id>
	<title>Re:Why not take half a million cars out of the roa</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245835500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two vehicles, one is a car that I carpool to work with two other people in my building, the other is a real pickup truck.   I only use the pickup truck when I need to haul big things or when my car busts down.</p><p>My car gets really good mileage as well.   Now I could trade my car and pickup in for an SUV(so i can still haul big stuff), but I would burn more fuel each day as I do currently.    For me having two vehicles gives me added flexibility and improves my overall efficiency.  I only use my pickup once a month and it is emission compliant.   So for some peopel who are smart, having two vehicles helps save the planet.</p><p>Or should I get myself and SUV instead of two vehicles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two vehicles , one is a car that I carpool to work with two other people in my building , the other is a real pickup truck .
I only use the pickup truck when I need to haul big things or when my car busts down.My car gets really good mileage as well .
Now I could trade my car and pickup in for an SUV ( so i can still haul big stuff ) , but I would burn more fuel each day as I do currently .
For me having two vehicles gives me added flexibility and improves my overall efficiency .
I only use my pickup once a month and it is emission compliant .
So for some peopel who are smart , having two vehicles helps save the planet.Or should I get myself and SUV instead of two vehicles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two vehicles, one is a car that I carpool to work with two other people in my building, the other is a real pickup truck.
I only use the pickup truck when I need to haul big things or when my car busts down.My car gets really good mileage as well.
Now I could trade my car and pickup in for an SUV(so i can still haul big stuff), but I would burn more fuel each day as I do currently.
For me having two vehicles gives me added flexibility and improves my overall efficiency.
I only use my pickup once a month and it is emission compliant.
So for some peopel who are smart, having two vehicles helps save the planet.Or should I get myself and SUV instead of two vehicles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28461377</id>
	<title>Re:United States asked to bear the burden</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245852120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because environmentalism is a luxury good. When your decision is between saving a rainforest or cutting down the trees to feed your family, you do the latter. When you're spending $8 on a latte, you have room to crusade for saving the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because environmentalism is a luxury good .
When your decision is between saving a rainforest or cutting down the trees to feed your family , you do the latter .
When you 're spending $ 8 on a latte , you have room to crusade for saving the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because environmentalism is a luxury good.
When your decision is between saving a rainforest or cutting down the trees to feed your family, you do the latter.
When you're spending $8 on a latte, you have room to crusade for saving the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460857</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245848160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, most of your post is actually not far off of the mark.  Cow are not carbon neutral, and the current distribution system is at least partially to blame.  However I need to take a moment to beat you over the head for that last nonsensical sentence that nearly removes any value from your post.  <br> <br>Modern agriculture (ie Fertilisers, pesticides, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, antibiotics, posilac, et al.) is far "greener" than organic farming will ever be.  I know this because I work in Agricultural research.  <br> <br>Modern fertilizers and pesitcides enable greater crop yeilds/acre, meaning less acres need to be planted, meaning less acres need to be driven by tractors both harvesting &amp; planting.  Organic production actually requires you pull out the tractor and appy fertilizer and pesticides more frequently (Organic doesn't say you can't, it only says you can't use specific ones becuase without both no one would be able to grow enough organic corn to feed their organic chickens) becuase it forces you to use fertilizers and pesticides that don't work as well.  It also forbids the use of roundup ready crops that require a fraction of the fertilizer and pesitcide applications and can be planted without tilling the soil.  <br> <br>Tilling the soil is the single largest reason for nutrient leaching from soil into surface water when it rains.  The tilling breaks up the soil, airing it out, and making it easier for rain to wash away important nutrients, thus requiring greater applications of fertilizers (See where I'm going with all of this?).<br> <br>CAFOs enable producers to manage larger heards more efficiently, with a greater attention to detail.  Some one that works with weanling pigs all day every day will have a better eye for which pigs are struggling than a farmer that only spends part of their day with the weanling pigs, and the rest of the day spread across the growers, finishers, boars, 1st and 2nd parity gilts, sows, and the farrowing house.  It's akin a doctor specializing in one particular field of medicine instead of forcing them all to be General Practitioners.<br> <br>Posilac (trade name for recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST) enables farmers to use less cow, and as a result less feed, to produce the same volume of milk.  That kind of math shouldn't really need explanation or defending, but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac, despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk.  Milk from these cows contain BST at the same concentration and cannot be differentiate from milk from cows not injected with rBST.  The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.<br> <br>Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical, as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development (weaning comes first to mind).  They also prevent the need to use much larger doses of theraputic antibiotics, and help animals grow more efficiently as less of the energy and nutrients in animal feed go toward growing bacterial populations and more goes toward growing the host animal.  None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes.  My belief is that's because most people don't interact with farm animals on a regular basis, but they do go to doctors offices and hospitals where antibiotics are abused to a shameful degree (and all the bugs there can colonize humans, where many bugs that colonize pigs or chickens cannot colonize humans.  The internal environment is too dissimilar.)<br> <br>However, since I'm one of only a handful of people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. with any actual education in the agricultural arena.  Let the cherry picking of the topics for refutation with regurgitated FUD beign in 1... 2... 3...<br> <br>Please let my pessimism be wrong for once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , most of your post is actually not far off of the mark .
Cow are not carbon neutral , and the current distribution system is at least partially to blame .
However I need to take a moment to beat you over the head for that last nonsensical sentence that nearly removes any value from your post .
Modern agriculture ( ie Fertilisers , pesticides , Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations , antibiotics , posilac , et al .
) is far " greener " than organic farming will ever be .
I know this because I work in Agricultural research .
Modern fertilizers and pesitcides enable greater crop yeilds/acre , meaning less acres need to be planted , meaning less acres need to be driven by tractors both harvesting &amp; planting .
Organic production actually requires you pull out the tractor and appy fertilizer and pesticides more frequently ( Organic does n't say you ca n't , it only says you ca n't use specific ones becuase without both no one would be able to grow enough organic corn to feed their organic chickens ) becuase it forces you to use fertilizers and pesticides that do n't work as well .
It also forbids the use of roundup ready crops that require a fraction of the fertilizer and pesitcide applications and can be planted without tilling the soil .
Tilling the soil is the single largest reason for nutrient leaching from soil into surface water when it rains .
The tilling breaks up the soil , airing it out , and making it easier for rain to wash away important nutrients , thus requiring greater applications of fertilizers ( See where I 'm going with all of this ? ) .
CAFOs enable producers to manage larger heards more efficiently , with a greater attention to detail .
Some one that works with weanling pigs all day every day will have a better eye for which pigs are struggling than a farmer that only spends part of their day with the weanling pigs , and the rest of the day spread across the growers , finishers , boars , 1st and 2nd parity gilts , sows , and the farrowing house .
It 's akin a doctor specializing in one particular field of medicine instead of forcing them all to be General Practitioners .
Posilac ( trade name for recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST ) enables farmers to use less cow , and as a result less feed , to produce the same volume of milk .
That kind of math should n't really need explanation or defending , but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac , despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk .
Milk from these cows contain BST at the same concentration and can not be differentiate from milk from cows not injected with rBST .
The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal ' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason .
Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical , as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development ( weaning comes first to mind ) .
They also prevent the need to use much larger doses of theraputic antibiotics , and help animals grow more efficiently as less of the energy and nutrients in animal feed go toward growing bacterial populations and more goes toward growing the host animal .
None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes .
My belief is that 's because most people do n't interact with farm animals on a regular basis , but they do go to doctors offices and hospitals where antibiotics are abused to a shameful degree ( and all the bugs there can colonize humans , where many bugs that colonize pigs or chickens can not colonize humans .
The internal environment is too dissimilar .
) However , since I 'm one of only a handful of people on / .
with any actual education in the agricultural arena .
Let the cherry picking of the topics for refutation with regurgitated FUD beign in 1... 2... 3... Please let my pessimism be wrong for once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, most of your post is actually not far off of the mark.
Cow are not carbon neutral, and the current distribution system is at least partially to blame.
However I need to take a moment to beat you over the head for that last nonsensical sentence that nearly removes any value from your post.
Modern agriculture (ie Fertilisers, pesticides, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, antibiotics, posilac, et al.
) is far "greener" than organic farming will ever be.
I know this because I work in Agricultural research.
Modern fertilizers and pesitcides enable greater crop yeilds/acre, meaning less acres need to be planted, meaning less acres need to be driven by tractors both harvesting &amp; planting.
Organic production actually requires you pull out the tractor and appy fertilizer and pesticides more frequently (Organic doesn't say you can't, it only says you can't use specific ones becuase without both no one would be able to grow enough organic corn to feed their organic chickens) becuase it forces you to use fertilizers and pesticides that don't work as well.
It also forbids the use of roundup ready crops that require a fraction of the fertilizer and pesitcide applications and can be planted without tilling the soil.
Tilling the soil is the single largest reason for nutrient leaching from soil into surface water when it rains.
The tilling breaks up the soil, airing it out, and making it easier for rain to wash away important nutrients, thus requiring greater applications of fertilizers (See where I'm going with all of this?).
CAFOs enable producers to manage larger heards more efficiently, with a greater attention to detail.
Some one that works with weanling pigs all day every day will have a better eye for which pigs are struggling than a farmer that only spends part of their day with the weanling pigs, and the rest of the day spread across the growers, finishers, boars, 1st and 2nd parity gilts, sows, and the farrowing house.
It's akin a doctor specializing in one particular field of medicine instead of forcing them all to be General Practitioners.
Posilac (trade name for recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST) enables farmers to use less cow, and as a result less feed, to produce the same volume of milk.
That kind of math shouldn't really need explanation or defending, but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac, despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk.
Milk from these cows contain BST at the same concentration and cannot be differentiate from milk from cows not injected with rBST.
The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.
Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical, as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development (weaning comes first to mind).
They also prevent the need to use much larger doses of theraputic antibiotics, and help animals grow more efficiently as less of the energy and nutrients in animal feed go toward growing bacterial populations and more goes toward growing the host animal.
None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes.
My belief is that's because most people don't interact with farm animals on a regular basis, but they do go to doctors offices and hospitals where antibiotics are abused to a shameful degree (and all the bugs there can colonize humans, where many bugs that colonize pigs or chickens cannot colonize humans.
The internal environment is too dissimilar.
) However, since I'm one of only a handful of people on /.
with any actual education in the agricultural arena.
Let the cherry picking of the topics for refutation with regurgitated FUD beign in 1... 2... 3... Please let my pessimism be wrong for once.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458745</id>
	<title>Re:Feed them what nature intended</title>
	<author>eison</author>
	<datestamp>1245838080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You only have the luxury of thinking that because you can afford it.  If you were close enough to starving, you wouldn't think it a fair trade off anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You only have the luxury of thinking that because you can afford it .
If you were close enough to starving , you would n't think it a fair trade off anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You only have the luxury of thinking that because you can afford it.
If you were close enough to starving, you wouldn't think it a fair trade off anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455043</id>
	<title>More cowbell</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245867900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More\_cowbell" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">More cowbell</a> [wikipedia.org], less cow-burp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More cowbell [ wikipedia.org ] , less cow-burp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More cowbell [wikipedia.org], less cow-burp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28461805</id>
	<title>Re:I'm very tired of global warming</title>
	<author>Cross-Threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1245855720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just had a thought about this whole global warming thing. (Yes, it hurt my head.)</p><p>I'm willing to accept the alleged fact that the earth is getting warmer on the whole. But, I haven't heard anyone bring this tidbit up yet:</p><p>Could it be that the earth is becoming warmer because the number of heat engines that populate the planet has continued to increase significantly.</p><p>Perhaps that there are so many more heat producing humans on the planet than previously existed might have something to do with it? I can't imagine that this wouldn't at least be a contributing factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just had a thought about this whole global warming thing .
( Yes , it hurt my head .
) I 'm willing to accept the alleged fact that the earth is getting warmer on the whole .
But , I have n't heard anyone bring this tidbit up yet : Could it be that the earth is becoming warmer because the number of heat engines that populate the planet has continued to increase significantly.Perhaps that there are so many more heat producing humans on the planet than previously existed might have something to do with it ?
I ca n't imagine that this would n't at least be a contributing factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just had a thought about this whole global warming thing.
(Yes, it hurt my head.
)I'm willing to accept the alleged fact that the earth is getting warmer on the whole.
But, I haven't heard anyone bring this tidbit up yet:Could it be that the earth is becoming warmer because the number of heat engines that populate the planet has continued to increase significantly.Perhaps that there are so many more heat producing humans on the planet than previously existed might have something to do with it?
I can't imagine that this wouldn't at least be a contributing factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456225</id>
	<title>Re:Will this really work?</title>
	<author>UncleTogie</author>
	<datestamp>1245871740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I think it would be a lot more effective (and it makes more sense) to genetically engineer the methane-producing bacteria in their digestive tract, solving the problem at the root of the cause.</p></div><p>I wonder if anyone has tried adding <a href="http://www.beanogas.com/" title="beanogas.com">this</a> [beanogas.com] {or something similar} to their feed yet...</p><p>I can't stand the stuff, personally. Produced an... interesting sensation as it worked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think it would be a lot more effective ( and it makes more sense ) to genetically engineer the methane-producing bacteria in their digestive tract , solving the problem at the root of the cause.I wonder if anyone has tried adding this [ beanogas.com ] { or something similar } to their feed yet...I ca n't stand the stuff , personally .
Produced an... interesting sensation as it worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think it would be a lot more effective (and it makes more sense) to genetically engineer the methane-producing bacteria in their digestive tract, solving the problem at the root of the cause.I wonder if anyone has tried adding this [beanogas.com] {or something similar} to their feed yet...I can't stand the stuff, personally.
Produced an... interesting sensation as it worked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457639</id>
	<title>Problem already solved</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1245834120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Feeding cattle different grass, ie something similar to what they evolved to eat, solves the methane problem. <br> <br>

<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/06/08/omega-3s-in-a-cows-diet-provide-a-health-boost\%E2\%80\%94to-the-atmosphere/" title="discovermagazine.com">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/06/08/omega-3s-in-a-cows-diet-provide-a-health-boost\%E2\%80\%94to-the-atmosphere/</a> [discovermagazine.com]
<br> <br>
So other than making lots of money from selling a low-methane breed, I really don't see the point, we already have the solution to the methane problem, we were just feeding them wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feeding cattle different grass , ie something similar to what they evolved to eat , solves the methane problem .
http : //blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/06/08/omega-3s-in-a-cows-diet-provide-a-health-boost \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 94to-the-atmosphere/ [ discovermagazine.com ] So other than making lots of money from selling a low-methane breed , I really do n't see the point , we already have the solution to the methane problem , we were just feeding them wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feeding cattle different grass, ie something similar to what they evolved to eat, solves the methane problem.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/06/08/omega-3s-in-a-cows-diet-provide-a-health-boost\%E2\%80\%94to-the-atmosphere/ [discovermagazine.com]
 
So other than making lots of money from selling a low-methane breed, I really don't see the point, we already have the solution to the methane problem, we were just feeding them wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455683</id>
	<title>the numbers game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I understand their numbers.  But if reducing all cow emissions by 12\% is equivalent to half a million cars, and there are 250 million cars on the road[1], couldn't you do more by reducing emissions from all cars by even 1\% ?  (Someone whose still in school want to do the math for me?)</p><p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger\_vehicles\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger\_vehicles\_in\_the\_United\_States</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand their numbers .
But if reducing all cow emissions by 12 \ % is equivalent to half a million cars , and there are 250 million cars on the road [ 1 ] , could n't you do more by reducing emissions from all cars by even 1 \ % ?
( Someone whose still in school want to do the math for me ?
) [ 1 ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger \ _vehicles \ _in \ _the \ _United \ _States [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand their numbers.
But if reducing all cow emissions by 12\% is equivalent to half a million cars, and there are 250 million cars on the road[1], couldn't you do more by reducing emissions from all cars by even 1\% ?
(Someone whose still in school want to do the math for me?
)[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger\_vehicles\_in\_the\_United\_States [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921</id>
	<title>Re:I'm very tired of global warming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, the old "Global Warming is not caused by humans, or not happening" theory.</p><p>Perhaps you'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming, while many other scientific studies have. The only possibilities I can think of that make your argument reasonable are some combination of:<br>
&nbsp; 1. A vast conspiracy of climatologists made the whole thing up.<br>
&nbsp; 2. Al Gore and some environmentalists cajoled and bullied the vast majority of climatologists into making the whole thing up.<br>
&nbsp; 3. realcoolguy425 knows more about how the Earth's climate works than the vast majority of climatologists.<br>
&nbsp; 4. There's some built-in bias that means that all climatologists are predisposed to seeing evidence of global warming when there isn't any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , the old " Global Warming is not caused by humans , or not happening " theory.Perhaps you 'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming , while many other scientific studies have .
The only possibilities I can think of that make your argument reasonable are some combination of :   1 .
A vast conspiracy of climatologists made the whole thing up .
  2 .
Al Gore and some environmentalists cajoled and bullied the vast majority of climatologists into making the whole thing up .
  3. realcoolguy425 knows more about how the Earth 's climate works than the vast majority of climatologists .
  4 .
There 's some built-in bias that means that all climatologists are predisposed to seeing evidence of global warming when there is n't any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, the old "Global Warming is not caused by humans, or not happening" theory.Perhaps you'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming, while many other scientific studies have.
The only possibilities I can think of that make your argument reasonable are some combination of:
  1.
A vast conspiracy of climatologists made the whole thing up.
  2.
Al Gore and some environmentalists cajoled and bullied the vast majority of climatologists into making the whole thing up.
  3. realcoolguy425 knows more about how the Earth's climate works than the vast majority of climatologists.
  4.
There's some built-in bias that means that all climatologists are predisposed to seeing evidence of global warming when there isn't any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457319</id>
	<title>Re:Meat Vats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245876120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um... How about eating less meat?</p><p>Easier, does not require GMOs, and healthier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... How about eating less meat ? Easier , does not require GMOs , and healthier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... How about eating less meat?Easier, does not require GMOs, and healthier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28461655</id>
	<title>The insanity of reducing "greenhouse gases"</title>
	<author>DuBois</author>
	<datestamp>1245854520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When someone tells you that greenhouse gases "must be reduced" ask the following question: "What evidence is there that methane and CO2 control anything, let alone the temperature at the earth's surface?"<br> <br>Until someone can come up with a measurable, falsifiable method for pointing directly at methane and CO2 as the drivers of the planet's temperature, it is insane to try to change our output of these gases<br> <br>Instead of breeding cows that produce more milk, we invest money in attempting to reduce their very natural output of methane. Doing so will eventually bankrupt the West, allowing the East to triumph both culturally and economically.<br> <br>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is literally suicidal. If your ultimate concern is the reduction of greenhouse gases, please consider a large 10 gallon plastic bag over your head, with a good bit of duct tape to prevent your personal emissions from escaping. You will very quickly cease to "pollute" the atmosphere with that plant-vital gas, CO2.<br> <br>You may also thereby contribute to the coming ice age, <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/archibald-the-ap-index-says-there-will-be-no-sunspots/#more-8797" title="wattsupwiththat.com">directly attributable to the current lack of sunspots.</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>When someone tells you that greenhouse gases " must be reduced " ask the following question : " What evidence is there that methane and CO2 control anything , let alone the temperature at the earth 's surface ?
" Until someone can come up with a measurable , falsifiable method for pointing directly at methane and CO2 as the drivers of the planet 's temperature , it is insane to try to change our output of these gases Instead of breeding cows that produce more milk , we invest money in attempting to reduce their very natural output of methane .
Doing so will eventually bankrupt the West , allowing the East to triumph both culturally and economically .
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is literally suicidal .
If your ultimate concern is the reduction of greenhouse gases , please consider a large 10 gallon plastic bag over your head , with a good bit of duct tape to prevent your personal emissions from escaping .
You will very quickly cease to " pollute " the atmosphere with that plant-vital gas , CO2 .
You may also thereby contribute to the coming ice age , directly attributable to the current lack of sunspots .
[ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When someone tells you that greenhouse gases "must be reduced" ask the following question: "What evidence is there that methane and CO2 control anything, let alone the temperature at the earth's surface?
" Until someone can come up with a measurable, falsifiable method for pointing directly at methane and CO2 as the drivers of the planet's temperature, it is insane to try to change our output of these gases Instead of breeding cows that produce more milk, we invest money in attempting to reduce their very natural output of methane.
Doing so will eventually bankrupt the West, allowing the East to triumph both culturally and economically.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is literally suicidal.
If your ultimate concern is the reduction of greenhouse gases, please consider a large 10 gallon plastic bag over your head, with a good bit of duct tape to prevent your personal emissions from escaping.
You will very quickly cease to "pollute" the atmosphere with that plant-vital gas, CO2.
You may also thereby contribute to the coming ice age, directly attributable to the current lack of sunspots.
[wattsupwiththat.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457037</id>
	<title>Sure, also you could..</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1245875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Raise cows in airtight spaces, burn the methane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Raise cows in airtight spaces , burn the methane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raise cows in airtight spaces, burn the methane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460263</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1245845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of which has absolutely no connection to a hypothetical cow that burps less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of which has absolutely no connection to a hypothetical cow that burps less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of which has absolutely no connection to a hypothetical cow that burps less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455877</id>
	<title>If these guys are so worried</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245870360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they stop breeding, and leave more resources for the rest of us, oh wait they want power and control, not a better world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they stop breeding , and leave more resources for the rest of us , oh wait they want power and control , not a better world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they stop breeding, and leave more resources for the rest of us, oh wait they want power and control, not a better world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456507</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't this go away?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1245872940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know solving nitrogen run-off and cow methane production are not mutually exclusive, right? There's absolutely nothing preventing them from being done in parallel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know solving nitrogen run-off and cow methane production are not mutually exclusive , right ?
There 's absolutely nothing preventing them from being done in parallel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know solving nitrogen run-off and cow methane production are not mutually exclusive, right?
There's absolutely nothing preventing them from being done in parallel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456589</id>
	<title>I have a fever...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245873180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and the only prescription is less cow belch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and the only prescription is less cow belch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the only prescription is less cow belch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460977</id>
	<title>Re:Cow-goroos?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245849000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not cut out a step, and eat the kangaroos?  They're tasty, healthy, and cheaper than beef - at least, here in Australia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not cut out a step , and eat the kangaroos ?
They 're tasty , healthy , and cheaper than beef - at least , here in Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not cut out a step, and eat the kangaroos?
They're tasty, healthy, and cheaper than beef - at least, here in Australia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469911</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1245959040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to what slb wrote, you're only looking at cattle in America.  The US is a net importer of beef (we do export significant amounts, but we import even more -- generally exporting quality products to Asia and importing cheap stuff from South America).  And what other giant herds of bison outside North America are you picturing as existing historically that make you not want to look at the world cattle production as a whole?  The arctic plains never supported a high ruminant density.  The eurasian steppes were dominated by equines, which are not ruminants.  We already covered the eastern african plains; the southern African plains aren't very different.  Forested, desert, mountainous, and jungle regions tend not to support high ruminant densities (the pre-columbian estimate for deer populations in the US is 50m, and deer are much less massive than cattle).  And on and on.  Bison in North America were exceptional *because* of their large numbers.   And if you want to diverge into talking about other ruminants, well, we need to discuss the other ruminants that we raise in huge numbers *now*, such as sheep and goats.  The simple facts are that today's population of ruminants is only sustainable via modern agriculture.</p><p>And lastly, methane levels are at ~1700ppm.  As evidenced by air pockets trapped in ice cores, until modern times, methane levels over the past 650 million years ranged from 400m to 700m.  So *something* is causing this, whether you accept livestock's role or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to what slb wrote , you 're only looking at cattle in America .
The US is a net importer of beef ( we do export significant amounts , but we import even more -- generally exporting quality products to Asia and importing cheap stuff from South America ) .
And what other giant herds of bison outside North America are you picturing as existing historically that make you not want to look at the world cattle production as a whole ?
The arctic plains never supported a high ruminant density .
The eurasian steppes were dominated by equines , which are not ruminants .
We already covered the eastern african plains ; the southern African plains are n't very different .
Forested , desert , mountainous , and jungle regions tend not to support high ruminant densities ( the pre-columbian estimate for deer populations in the US is 50m , and deer are much less massive than cattle ) .
And on and on .
Bison in North America were exceptional * because * of their large numbers .
And if you want to diverge into talking about other ruminants , well , we need to discuss the other ruminants that we raise in huge numbers * now * , such as sheep and goats .
The simple facts are that today 's population of ruminants is only sustainable via modern agriculture.And lastly , methane levels are at ~ 1700ppm .
As evidenced by air pockets trapped in ice cores , until modern times , methane levels over the past 650 million years ranged from 400m to 700m .
So * something * is causing this , whether you accept livestock 's role or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to what slb wrote, you're only looking at cattle in America.
The US is a net importer of beef (we do export significant amounts, but we import even more -- generally exporting quality products to Asia and importing cheap stuff from South America).
And what other giant herds of bison outside North America are you picturing as existing historically that make you not want to look at the world cattle production as a whole?
The arctic plains never supported a high ruminant density.
The eurasian steppes were dominated by equines, which are not ruminants.
We already covered the eastern african plains; the southern African plains aren't very different.
Forested, desert, mountainous, and jungle regions tend not to support high ruminant densities (the pre-columbian estimate for deer populations in the US is 50m, and deer are much less massive than cattle).
And on and on.
Bison in North America were exceptional *because* of their large numbers.
And if you want to diverge into talking about other ruminants, well, we need to discuss the other ruminants that we raise in huge numbers *now*, such as sheep and goats.
The simple facts are that today's population of ruminants is only sustainable via modern agriculture.And lastly, methane levels are at ~1700ppm.
As evidenced by air pockets trapped in ice cores, until modern times, methane levels over the past 650 million years ranged from 400m to 700m.
So *something* is causing this, whether you accept livestock's role or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462487</id>
	<title>Re:Bad article. This entire subject is FUD.</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1245860820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Guess what, the extraction of natural gas is an major methane contributor.</p><p>You do know that natural gas IS methane, right?</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Guess what , the extraction of natural gas is an major methane contributor.You do know that natural gas IS methane , right ? -b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Guess what, the extraction of natural gas is an major methane contributor.You do know that natural gas IS methane, right?-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457519</id>
	<title>Citation Needed!!</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1245876960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cows are responsible for almost 75\% of total methane emissions, mostly coming from burps.</p></div><p>Citation needed.  <br> <br>I find that number very hard to believe.  I've worked with a lot of livestock, and don't doubt that a lot of methane is coming from cattle, but I can't believe that they make up such a large percentage of global methane production.  Maybe I could believe 75\% of methane produced by agriculture, but I would expect agriculture to not contribute more than say 25\% tops.  Or alternatively, that methane is 75\% of the greenhouse gasses emitted by cattle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cows are responsible for almost 75 \ % of total methane emissions , mostly coming from burps.Citation needed .
I find that number very hard to believe .
I 've worked with a lot of livestock , and do n't doubt that a lot of methane is coming from cattle , but I ca n't believe that they make up such a large percentage of global methane production .
Maybe I could believe 75 \ % of methane produced by agriculture , but I would expect agriculture to not contribute more than say 25 \ % tops .
Or alternatively , that methane is 75 \ % of the greenhouse gasses emitted by cattle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cows are responsible for almost 75\% of total methane emissions, mostly coming from burps.Citation needed.
I find that number very hard to believe.
I've worked with a lot of livestock, and don't doubt that a lot of methane is coming from cattle, but I can't believe that they make up such a large percentage of global methane production.
Maybe I could believe 75\% of methane produced by agriculture, but I would expect agriculture to not contribute more than say 25\% tops.
Or alternatively, that methane is 75\% of the greenhouse gasses emitted by cattle.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455173</id>
	<title>Less but...</title>
	<author>JimboFBX</author>
	<datestamp>1245868260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because they burp less doesn't necessarily mean they produce less methane... "We made a cow that burps less. However, it farts more."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because they burp less does n't necessarily mean they produce less methane... " We made a cow that burps less .
However , it farts more .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because they burp less doesn't necessarily mean they produce less methane... "We made a cow that burps less.
However, it farts more.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462003</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices...."</p><p>Don't you have this backwards? The farms were here first. Maybe the people need to live closer to the farms??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices.... " Do n't you have this backwards ?
The farms were here first .
Maybe the people need to live closer to the farms ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices...."Don't you have this backwards?
The farms were here first.
Maybe the people need to live closer to the farms?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458737</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245838080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thank modern industrial agriculture for that.</p></div><p>Thanks modern agriculture!</p><p>There go my dreams of rewriting country songs with recordings of cow burps. You remember those christmas songs with dogs barking jingle bells? Yeehaw!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank modern industrial agriculture for that.Thanks modern agriculture ! There go my dreams of rewriting country songs with recordings of cow burps .
You remember those christmas songs with dogs barking jingle bells ?
Yeehaw !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank modern industrial agriculture for that.Thanks modern agriculture!There go my dreams of rewriting country songs with recordings of cow burps.
You remember those christmas songs with dogs barking jingle bells?
Yeehaw!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455197</id>
	<title>Eyes do funny things...</title>
	<author>DudeTheMath</author>
	<datestamp>1245868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else read that as taking "half a million cows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... off the road"? No? Just me, then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else read that as taking " half a million cows ... off the road " ?
No ? Just me , then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else read that as taking "half a million cows ... off the road"?
No? Just me, then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455651</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe so many of you are actually attempting sensible replies where a simple "LOL" would suffice.  If restricting or reducing naturally produced animal gases is the key to the future, we might as well just give up now.  Seriously, some scientists are actually getting paid for this?  Cut down on energy usage and convert to clean power and leave the poor cows alone.</p><p>I can already see this coming in a future South Park with a flip-top scientist....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe so many of you are actually attempting sensible replies where a simple " LOL " would suffice .
If restricting or reducing naturally produced animal gases is the key to the future , we might as well just give up now .
Seriously , some scientists are actually getting paid for this ?
Cut down on energy usage and convert to clean power and leave the poor cows alone.I can already see this coming in a future South Park with a flip-top scientist... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe so many of you are actually attempting sensible replies where a simple "LOL" would suffice.
If restricting or reducing naturally produced animal gases is the key to the future, we might as well just give up now.
Seriously, some scientists are actually getting paid for this?
Cut down on energy usage and convert to clean power and leave the poor cows alone.I can already see this coming in a future South Park with a flip-top scientist....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109</id>
	<title>United States asked to bear the burden</title>
	<author>pkbarbiedoll</author>
	<datestamp>1245875340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>of global Co2 emissions.   Not one word of the growing problem of Co2 belching factories in India, China and other parts of the third world.   How many millions of cars would be "taken off the road" if just one of these colossal polluters were dismantled and moved to countries with strong environmental laws which require scrubbers among other things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>of global Co2 emissions .
Not one word of the growing problem of Co2 belching factories in India , China and other parts of the third world .
How many millions of cars would be " taken off the road " if just one of these colossal polluters were dismantled and moved to countries with strong environmental laws which require scrubbers among other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of global Co2 emissions.
Not one word of the growing problem of Co2 belching factories in India, China and other parts of the third world.
How many millions of cars would be "taken off the road" if just one of these colossal polluters were dismantled and moved to countries with strong environmental laws which require scrubbers among other things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There have been animals around on earth a long time</i></p><p>Not all animals are ruminants.  Ruminants release methane due to enteric fermentation.  Ruminants are a relatively development on the evolutionary tree.  Furthermore, our large population of them in modern times is sustained only through high density industrial agriculture.  For example, probably the greatest natural landscape for large grazing herd animals today are the Serengeti and Masai Mara plains.  Combined, they only support 1.5 million wildebeest.  Even the massive bison herds that once spread across the entire great plains numbered at only 60 million.  We raise, what, 1.3 billion cattle?</p><p>History has never seen anywhere close to as many ruminants on the surface of the earth as we have today.  Thank modern industrial agriculture for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been animals around on earth a long timeNot all animals are ruminants .
Ruminants release methane due to enteric fermentation .
Ruminants are a relatively development on the evolutionary tree .
Furthermore , our large population of them in modern times is sustained only through high density industrial agriculture .
For example , probably the greatest natural landscape for large grazing herd animals today are the Serengeti and Masai Mara plains .
Combined , they only support 1.5 million wildebeest .
Even the massive bison herds that once spread across the entire great plains numbered at only 60 million .
We raise , what , 1.3 billion cattle ? History has never seen anywhere close to as many ruminants on the surface of the earth as we have today .
Thank modern industrial agriculture for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been animals around on earth a long timeNot all animals are ruminants.
Ruminants release methane due to enteric fermentation.
Ruminants are a relatively development on the evolutionary tree.
Furthermore, our large population of them in modern times is sustained only through high density industrial agriculture.
For example, probably the greatest natural landscape for large grazing herd animals today are the Serengeti and Masai Mara plains.
Combined, they only support 1.5 million wildebeest.
Even the massive bison herds that once spread across the entire great plains numbered at only 60 million.
We raise, what, 1.3 billion cattle?History has never seen anywhere close to as many ruminants on the surface of the earth as we have today.
Thank modern industrial agriculture for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455283</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245868620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just about meat. Neither will you get dairy products without cows or other livestock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just about meat .
Neither will you get dairy products without cows or other livestock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just about meat.
Neither will you get dairy products without cows or other livestock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462423</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245860220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That kind of math shouldn't really need explanation or defending, but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac, despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk.</i></p><p>Molecularly identical means it's no different than what's naturally occurring pharmaceutically, but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage.  This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone, that the concentrations are much higher than before.</p><p><i>The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.</i></p><p>I've never heard that before, which is a good reason why that hasn't fazed me.  If it's true that it doesn't interact with our bodies, than that resolves my concern.  It'll take more than a slashdot post to convince me, but I'll keep an eye out.  I'm just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.</p><p>So, good, it's not the beef hormones in McD's that's making kids mature faster and get fat, that's just the crap load of fat and calories in it.</p><p><i>Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical, as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development (weaning comes first to mind)...None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes. </i></p><p>Okay, but, I'm still not convinced that's a good idea.  Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they're already "in the wild"?  This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat.  Like, worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I've seen with my own eyes.  Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves.  Again, not sure why that makes it a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That kind of math should n't really need explanation or defending , but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac , despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk.Molecularly identical means it 's no different than what 's naturally occurring pharmaceutically , but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage .
This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone , that the concentrations are much higher than before.The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal ' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.I 've never heard that before , which is a good reason why that has n't fazed me .
If it 's true that it does n't interact with our bodies , than that resolves my concern .
It 'll take more than a slashdot post to convince me , but I 'll keep an eye out .
I 'm just cautious around hormones , since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot , and I learned they can be fairly " general " even when using another species ' hormones , but it 's ultimately all about the chemistry that I do n't know and might mean nothing happens.So , good , it 's not the beef hormones in McD 's that 's making kids mature faster and get fat , that 's just the crap load of fat and calories in it.Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical , as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development ( weaning comes first to mind ) ...None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes .
Okay , but , I 'm still not convinced that 's a good idea .
Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they 're already " in the wild " ?
This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat .
Like , worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I 've seen with my own eyes .
Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves .
Again , not sure why that makes it a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That kind of math shouldn't really need explanation or defending, but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac, despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk.Molecularly identical means it's no different than what's naturally occurring pharmaceutically, but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage.
This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone, that the concentrations are much higher than before.The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.I've never heard that before, which is a good reason why that hasn't fazed me.
If it's true that it doesn't interact with our bodies, than that resolves my concern.
It'll take more than a slashdot post to convince me, but I'll keep an eye out.
I'm just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.So, good, it's not the beef hormones in McD's that's making kids mature faster and get fat, that's just the crap load of fat and calories in it.Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical, as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development (weaning comes first to mind)...None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes.
Okay, but, I'm still not convinced that's a good idea.
Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they're already "in the wild"?
This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat.
Like, worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I've seen with my own eyes.
Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves.
Again, not sure why that makes it a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456067</id>
	<title>Re:Grass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could call it Soylent Green!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could call it Soylent Green !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could call it Soylent Green!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462787</id>
	<title>Re:I'm very tired of global warming</title>
	<author>DuBois</author>
	<datestamp>1245864420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps you'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming, while many other scientific studies have.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Hmmm.... Here's a scientific organization that doesn't take money coerced from taxpayers, and it actually uses scientific evidence in its conclusions: <a href="http://www.nipccreport.org/" title="nipccreport.org">Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.</a> [nipccreport.org]
<br> <br>And if that's not enough for you, how about a scientist, journalist, and educator who actually thinks that science should be based on evidence, not psychic prognostications of computer programs and scientific "consensus": <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/" title="joannenova.com.au">Joanne Nova.
</a> [joannenova.com.au]<br> <br>And yes, the "built-in bias" is billions of dollars of money coerced out of the pockets of impoverished taxpayers. When a "scientist's" job depends on continued political support, he'll ignore and distort data in order to produce the result his political handlers are looking for. Those political handlers want a result that allows them to control ever more of the world's economy to their own benefit and the impoverishment of everyone else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you 'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming , while many other scientific studies have .
Hmmm.... Here 's a scientific organization that does n't take money coerced from taxpayers , and it actually uses scientific evidence in its conclusions : Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change .
[ nipccreport.org ] And if that 's not enough for you , how about a scientist , journalist , and educator who actually thinks that science should be based on evidence , not psychic prognostications of computer programs and scientific " consensus " : Joanne Nova .
[ joannenova.com.au ] And yes , the " built-in bias " is billions of dollars of money coerced out of the pockets of impoverished taxpayers .
When a " scientist 's " job depends on continued political support , he 'll ignore and distort data in order to produce the result his political handlers are looking for .
Those political handlers want a result that allows them to control ever more of the world 's economy to their own benefit and the impoverishment of everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming, while many other scientific studies have.
Hmmm.... Here's a scientific organization that doesn't take money coerced from taxpayers, and it actually uses scientific evidence in its conclusions: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
[nipccreport.org]
 And if that's not enough for you, how about a scientist, journalist, and educator who actually thinks that science should be based on evidence, not psychic prognostications of computer programs and scientific "consensus": Joanne Nova.
[joannenova.com.au] And yes, the "built-in bias" is billions of dollars of money coerced out of the pockets of impoverished taxpayers.
When a "scientist's" job depends on continued political support, he'll ignore and distort data in order to produce the result his political handlers are looking for.
Those political handlers want a result that allows them to control ever more of the world's economy to their own benefit and the impoverishment of everyone else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455623</id>
	<title>The gist of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of carbon produced by the cow in its lifetime plus decomposition after death is essentially the same as if the cow had never lived and all the corn and soy it would have eaten simply decomposed. The problem is that a cow produces not just carbon in one form, it tends to produce methane (the burps referred to) and methane has a much larger impact in global warming than CO2. The reason that the cows produce large amounts of methane is because the bacteria in their rumen (first stomach) is not right for the diets  of mostly corn and soy that they are typically fed and this produces the methane burps. (Incidentally that is why there is relatively little methane in cow farts, almost all of the methane is produced in the rumen.)</p><p>So one option is to feed cows mostly grass, that is not sustainable in the large industrial scale used. Another option would be to genetically engineer bacteria that produces less methane and introduce it to the cow rumen. That actually makes more sense than engineering cows with a rumen more like a stomach. Another far fetched option would be to capture the methane, then sequester or burn it outright (the green house gases then are much less harmful).</p><p>If you have ever been near an industrial cattle or dairy farm, the stench is unimaginable. In a large cattle farm you can see the methane pockets causing the horizon to wiggle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of carbon produced by the cow in its lifetime plus decomposition after death is essentially the same as if the cow had never lived and all the corn and soy it would have eaten simply decomposed .
The problem is that a cow produces not just carbon in one form , it tends to produce methane ( the burps referred to ) and methane has a much larger impact in global warming than CO2 .
The reason that the cows produce large amounts of methane is because the bacteria in their rumen ( first stomach ) is not right for the diets of mostly corn and soy that they are typically fed and this produces the methane burps .
( Incidentally that is why there is relatively little methane in cow farts , almost all of the methane is produced in the rumen .
) So one option is to feed cows mostly grass , that is not sustainable in the large industrial scale used .
Another option would be to genetically engineer bacteria that produces less methane and introduce it to the cow rumen .
That actually makes more sense than engineering cows with a rumen more like a stomach .
Another far fetched option would be to capture the methane , then sequester or burn it outright ( the green house gases then are much less harmful ) .If you have ever been near an industrial cattle or dairy farm , the stench is unimaginable .
In a large cattle farm you can see the methane pockets causing the horizon to wiggle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of carbon produced by the cow in its lifetime plus decomposition after death is essentially the same as if the cow had never lived and all the corn and soy it would have eaten simply decomposed.
The problem is that a cow produces not just carbon in one form, it tends to produce methane (the burps referred to) and methane has a much larger impact in global warming than CO2.
The reason that the cows produce large amounts of methane is because the bacteria in their rumen (first stomach) is not right for the diets  of mostly corn and soy that they are typically fed and this produces the methane burps.
(Incidentally that is why there is relatively little methane in cow farts, almost all of the methane is produced in the rumen.
)So one option is to feed cows mostly grass, that is not sustainable in the large industrial scale used.
Another option would be to genetically engineer bacteria that produces less methane and introduce it to the cow rumen.
That actually makes more sense than engineering cows with a rumen more like a stomach.
Another far fetched option would be to capture the methane, then sequester or burn it outright (the green house gases then are much less harmful).If you have ever been near an industrial cattle or dairy farm, the stench is unimaginable.
In a large cattle farm you can see the methane pockets causing the horizon to wiggle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458789</id>
	<title>Yes but...</title>
	<author>PolishPimpin</author>
	<datestamp>1245838320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>will they be less delicious?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>will they be less delicious ?
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will they be less delicious?
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456019</id>
	<title>Why not USE the methane?</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1245870900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We could hook the cows up up Matrix style, a tube in both ends, capture the methane and run our little contraptions. It's not like we're that far away anyways with Confined Feeding Operations. When they stop putting out, we flush them into the grinder for hamburger. SOLVED.

Yes this is sarcastic..

Or is it..</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could hook the cows up up Matrix style , a tube in both ends , capture the methane and run our little contraptions .
It 's not like we 're that far away anyways with Confined Feeding Operations .
When they stop putting out , we flush them into the grinder for hamburger .
SOLVED . Yes this is sarcastic. . Or is it. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could hook the cows up up Matrix style, a tube in both ends, capture the methane and run our little contraptions.
It's not like we're that far away anyways with Confined Feeding Operations.
When they stop putting out, we flush them into the grinder for hamburger.
SOLVED.

Yes this is sarcastic..

Or is it..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456417</id>
	<title>Cow Tech</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1245872580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, great. Next it will be OBD computers and catalytic converters, and soon cows will be too difficult for the average person to maintain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , great .
Next it will be OBD computers and catalytic converters , and soon cows will be too difficult for the average person to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, great.
Next it will be OBD computers and catalytic converters, and soon cows will be too difficult for the average person to maintain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455633</id>
	<title>Soylent green!</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245869700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's... its'... peeeeople!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's... its'... peeeeople !
      -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's... its'... peeeeople!
      -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>R.Mo\_Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1245875340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.</p></div><p>Not when they're fed corn that was shipped, using fossil fuels, halfway across the country to get there. (Let's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer, derived from petroleum, and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it, more petroleum. And the fact that the cow itself, after being processed, will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels.) Also, cows are ruminants: they're supposed to eat grass. Grass is free, and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.</p><p>If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices, cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.Not when they 're fed corn that was shipped , using fossil fuels , halfway across the country to get there .
( Let 's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer , derived from petroleum , and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it , more petroleum .
And the fact that the cow itself , after being processed , will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels .
) Also , cows are ruminants : they 're supposed to eat grass .
Grass is free , and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices , cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.Not when they're fed corn that was shipped, using fossil fuels, halfway across the country to get there.
(Let's not even go into the fact that this corn was produced using artificial fertilizer, derived from petroleum, and sprayed with pesticide--you guessed it, more petroleum.
And the fact that the cow itself, after being processed, will be shipped halfway across the country again to reach your dinner plate--fossil fuels.
) Also, cows are ruminants: they're supposed to eat grass.
Grass is free, and its energy comes from the sun--not long-dead dinosaurs.If all farmers farmed more locally and closer to organic practices, cows would be a lot closer to being carbon-neutral.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455963</id>
	<title>Why breed cows?</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1245870600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fixed my lactose intolerance by introducing a micro-organism into my body (lactobacillus delbrueckii, to replace l. acidophilus, which had failed for some reason).  Same can be done with cows, find something that breaks down methane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fixed my lactose intolerance by introducing a micro-organism into my body ( lactobacillus delbrueckii , to replace l. acidophilus , which had failed for some reason ) .
Same can be done with cows , find something that breaks down methane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fixed my lactose intolerance by introducing a micro-organism into my body (lactobacillus delbrueckii, to replace l. acidophilus, which had failed for some reason).
Same can be done with cows, find something that breaks down methane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456743</id>
	<title>Re:Bad article. This entire subject is FUD.</title>
	<author>smallshot</author>
	<datestamp>1245873900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe the "75\%" is supposed to refer to the cow's percentage of the total methane produced by dairy farmers alone.  Another <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;ct=res&amp;cd=2&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fnews.yahoo.com\%2Fs\%2Fap\%2F20090621\%2Fap\_on\_re\_us\%2Fus\_burpless\_cows&amp;ei=bWJCSvPTJJ-yMePipcIH&amp;usg=AFQjCNGzyhgfq6GZMuPhu4hCGm5Wba4iFw" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [google.com] (posted by someone else above) says dairy cows produce 2\% of the worlds methane emissions, but cows are the largest methane source for dairy farmers.<br> <br>Just another reason not to trust any "facts" the media gives us without further investigation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the " 75 \ % " is supposed to refer to the cow 's percentage of the total methane produced by dairy farmers alone .
Another article [ google.com ] ( posted by someone else above ) says dairy cows produce 2 \ % of the worlds methane emissions , but cows are the largest methane source for dairy farmers .
Just another reason not to trust any " facts " the media gives us without further investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the "75\%" is supposed to refer to the cow's percentage of the total methane produced by dairy farmers alone.
Another article [google.com] (posted by someone else above) says dairy cows produce 2\% of the worlds methane emissions, but cows are the largest methane source for dairy farmers.
Just another reason not to trust any "facts" the media gives us without further investigation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457815</id>
	<title>Re:Will this really work?</title>
	<author>Protoslo</author>
	<datestamp>1245834900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parent post is modded funny because of its sarcastic tone, but reading TFA, these were my only thoughts.  The parent has a very good point: you cannot genetically engineer a cow to 'produce less methane' because cows produce no methane: the bacteria and protists colonizing their gut produce methane.  Whether cows belch, fart, or exhale methane, it has to escape somehow.  The only way to "lower methane levels in the digestive system" without modifying the bacteria would be to make the cow absorb and metabolize methane!  That sounds a lot more difficult than changing the gut bacteria composition.  I think it is likely that quite a bit was lost in the journey from research to newspaper article here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent post is modded funny because of its sarcastic tone , but reading TFA , these were my only thoughts .
The parent has a very good point : you can not genetically engineer a cow to 'produce less methane ' because cows produce no methane : the bacteria and protists colonizing their gut produce methane .
Whether cows belch , fart , or exhale methane , it has to escape somehow .
The only way to " lower methane levels in the digestive system " without modifying the bacteria would be to make the cow absorb and metabolize methane !
That sounds a lot more difficult than changing the gut bacteria composition .
I think it is likely that quite a bit was lost in the journey from research to newspaper article here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent post is modded funny because of its sarcastic tone, but reading TFA, these were my only thoughts.
The parent has a very good point: you cannot genetically engineer a cow to 'produce less methane' because cows produce no methane: the bacteria and protists colonizing their gut produce methane.
Whether cows belch, fart, or exhale methane, it has to escape somehow.
The only way to "lower methane levels in the digestive system" without modifying the bacteria would be to make the cow absorb and metabolize methane!
That sounds a lot more difficult than changing the gut bacteria composition.
I think it is likely that quite a bit was lost in the journey from research to newspaper article here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455251</id>
	<title>If every US dairy farmer...</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1245868500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I so sick of these type of meaningless statistics that just serve to give good feelings without doing anything useful.  They also serve to make things worse when some fool law maker reads this and creates a tax for those farmers who don't reduce their output.  The law maker can claim he took half a million cars off the road and meat just costs more while methane will stay the same or increase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I so sick of these type of meaningless statistics that just serve to give good feelings without doing anything useful .
They also serve to make things worse when some fool law maker reads this and creates a tax for those farmers who do n't reduce their output .
The law maker can claim he took half a million cars off the road and meat just costs more while methane will stay the same or increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I so sick of these type of meaningless statistics that just serve to give good feelings without doing anything useful.
They also serve to make things worse when some fool law maker reads this and creates a tax for those farmers who don't reduce their output.
The law maker can claim he took half a million cars off the road and meat just costs more while methane will stay the same or increase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457919</id>
	<title>Re:Bad article. This entire subject is FUD.</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245835260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought draining wetlands was a bad thing, turns out it could save the planet and rid of us those pesky mosquitoes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought draining wetlands was a bad thing , turns out it could save the planet and rid of us those pesky mosquitoes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought draining wetlands was a bad thing, turns out it could save the planet and rid of us those pesky mosquitoes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457221</id>
	<title>Mikey Will Eat Anything!</title>
	<author>tunapez</author>
	<datestamp>1245875700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let him eat it first.</p><p>Genetic mod's make me think of unintended consequences, I'm sure I'm just being paranoid and will stay that way. TFA doesn't state how to accelerate growth(even more hormones? time machine? magic?) They do state higher quality feed would help, but what goes into growing this premium feed and it's effects on the environment? More nutrients drawn from the dirt, more fertilizers required(how will the methane-free fertilizer work?). Lotsa questions need to be answered before I'll take a bite of a gen-mod burger.</p><p>Oh, and all this to reduce emmissions = 500K cars? Wow, quick fact check found 600 million cars on the world's roads back in '97, I'm sure all the additional costs that will make their way to the consumer will all be worth it in the end. Get it:, end... rear...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let him eat it first.Genetic mod 's make me think of unintended consequences , I 'm sure I 'm just being paranoid and will stay that way .
TFA does n't state how to accelerate growth ( even more hormones ?
time machine ?
magic ? ) They do state higher quality feed would help , but what goes into growing this premium feed and it 's effects on the environment ?
More nutrients drawn from the dirt , more fertilizers required ( how will the methane-free fertilizer work ? ) .
Lotsa questions need to be answered before I 'll take a bite of a gen-mod burger.Oh , and all this to reduce emmissions = 500K cars ?
Wow , quick fact check found 600 million cars on the world 's roads back in '97 , I 'm sure all the additional costs that will make their way to the consumer will all be worth it in the end .
Get it : , end... rear... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let him eat it first.Genetic mod's make me think of unintended consequences, I'm sure I'm just being paranoid and will stay that way.
TFA doesn't state how to accelerate growth(even more hormones?
time machine?
magic?) They do state higher quality feed would help, but what goes into growing this premium feed and it's effects on the environment?
More nutrients drawn from the dirt, more fertilizers required(how will the methane-free fertilizer work?).
Lotsa questions need to be answered before I'll take a bite of a gen-mod burger.Oh, and all this to reduce emmissions = 500K cars?
Wow, quick fact check found 600 million cars on the world's roads back in '97, I'm sure all the additional costs that will make their way to the consumer will all be worth it in the end.
Get it:, end... rear...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455811</id>
	<title>FUCK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245870180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>STOP IT</p><p>this is now WAY beyond nonsense</p><p>The green movement is now nothing but grifters and snake oil men chasing after obama bucks with ludicrous claims, and predicted outcomes measured in "numbers in cars off the road" per "cost of toyota".  Do you know why these claims are measured such?  Because any analysis made in REAL WORLD metrics would show all this stuff as the nonsense it is.</p><p>And of course, no there are no testable or measurable scientific claims made.  You just accept on faith that 75\% of the worlds methane comes from cow burps.  Because some guy who "loves nature" says so.</p><p>I'm all for saving the world and the babies and the puppies, but I can't be the only one sick and tired of the frustration of watching my tax dollars being blatantly wasted on crooked schemes, at the same time my 'government' forces more slimy hands into my pockets in the name of 'the future'.</p><p>You can't even count on geeks to think anymore.   Common sense is now a superpower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>STOP ITthis is now WAY beyond nonsenseThe green movement is now nothing but grifters and snake oil men chasing after obama bucks with ludicrous claims , and predicted outcomes measured in " numbers in cars off the road " per " cost of toyota " .
Do you know why these claims are measured such ?
Because any analysis made in REAL WORLD metrics would show all this stuff as the nonsense it is.And of course , no there are no testable or measurable scientific claims made .
You just accept on faith that 75 \ % of the worlds methane comes from cow burps .
Because some guy who " loves nature " says so.I 'm all for saving the world and the babies and the puppies , but I ca n't be the only one sick and tired of the frustration of watching my tax dollars being blatantly wasted on crooked schemes , at the same time my 'government ' forces more slimy hands into my pockets in the name of 'the future'.You ca n't even count on geeks to think anymore .
Common sense is now a superpower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>STOP ITthis is now WAY beyond nonsenseThe green movement is now nothing but grifters and snake oil men chasing after obama bucks with ludicrous claims, and predicted outcomes measured in "numbers in cars off the road" per "cost of toyota".
Do you know why these claims are measured such?
Because any analysis made in REAL WORLD metrics would show all this stuff as the nonsense it is.And of course, no there are no testable or measurable scientific claims made.
You just accept on faith that 75\% of the worlds methane comes from cow burps.
Because some guy who "loves nature" says so.I'm all for saving the world and the babies and the puppies, but I can't be the only one sick and tired of the frustration of watching my tax dollars being blatantly wasted on crooked schemes, at the same time my 'government' forces more slimy hands into my pockets in the name of 'the future'.You can't even count on geeks to think anymore.
Common sense is now a superpower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458723</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>Doomdark</author>
	<datestamp>1245838020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>
Thing is that cows are carbon neutral. And carbon methane only has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 7 years, so the whole "carbon methane is more damaging than CO2" stuff is just complete nonsense.
</i>
<p>
No, you are taking the silly buzzword (carbon neutral) too literally. It's not the carbon that matters, it's the heat-trapping aspect of gases (which are carbon-based, hence this ill-chosen term) that matters. 7 years (assuming that is the accepted definition) is plenty long time to act as heat-trapping agent, especially considering that current estimates suggest there is strong feedback component too (warming itself induces additional effects that amplify warming).
And in that role, yes, methane is more efficient than CO2 by multiple orders of magnitude.
</p><p>
But as to carbon neutrality: to be carbon-neutral, you would have to explain exactly how are cows supposedly reducing effective amount of greenhouse gases in equivalent (or exceeding) amounts compared to production. I have hard time figuring out what exactly you might be implying here -- only thing I can think of are actually producing more of various gases due to breathing, digestion and perspiration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is that cows are carbon neutral .
And carbon methane only has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 7 years , so the whole " carbon methane is more damaging than CO2 " stuff is just complete nonsense .
No , you are taking the silly buzzword ( carbon neutral ) too literally .
It 's not the carbon that matters , it 's the heat-trapping aspect of gases ( which are carbon-based , hence this ill-chosen term ) that matters .
7 years ( assuming that is the accepted definition ) is plenty long time to act as heat-trapping agent , especially considering that current estimates suggest there is strong feedback component too ( warming itself induces additional effects that amplify warming ) .
And in that role , yes , methane is more efficient than CO2 by multiple orders of magnitude .
But as to carbon neutrality : to be carbon-neutral , you would have to explain exactly how are cows supposedly reducing effective amount of greenhouse gases in equivalent ( or exceeding ) amounts compared to production .
I have hard time figuring out what exactly you might be implying here -- only thing I can think of are actually producing more of various gases due to breathing , digestion and perspiration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Thing is that cows are carbon neutral.
And carbon methane only has a half-life in the atmosphere of about 7 years, so the whole "carbon methane is more damaging than CO2" stuff is just complete nonsense.
No, you are taking the silly buzzword (carbon neutral) too literally.
It's not the carbon that matters, it's the heat-trapping aspect of gases (which are carbon-based, hence this ill-chosen term) that matters.
7 years (assuming that is the accepted definition) is plenty long time to act as heat-trapping agent, especially considering that current estimates suggest there is strong feedback component too (warming itself induces additional effects that amplify warming).
And in that role, yes, methane is more efficient than CO2 by multiple orders of magnitude.
But as to carbon neutrality: to be carbon-neutral, you would have to explain exactly how are cows supposedly reducing effective amount of greenhouse gases in equivalent (or exceeding) amounts compared to production.
I have hard time figuring out what exactly you might be implying here -- only thing I can think of are actually producing more of various gases due to breathing, digestion and perspiration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455839</id>
	<title>Re:Veganism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245870300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's extremely difficult to be a strict vegan and still have a healthy diet.</p><p>Humans are omnivores.  That is not a philosophical decision, but a natural fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's extremely difficult to be a strict vegan and still have a healthy diet.Humans are omnivores .
That is not a philosophical decision , but a natural fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's extremely difficult to be a strict vegan and still have a healthy diet.Humans are omnivores.
That is not a philosophical decision, but a natural fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28588283</id>
	<title>Re:United States asked to bear the burden</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246785360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First-world countries have already been through the industrialization phase of growth and benefited from it.  Would it really be fair to say to the the now-developing countries that they can't do what we did without giving them a viable alternative?  Because of this, we (not just the US, but all developed countries) need to develop viable alternatives and implement them if we expect developing countries to do the same, we can't just say "don't do what we did because it's bad" without giving up the benefits we have accrued in the process without being hypocrites.  If we just tell them that, they'll just say "fuck off, we'll do it anyway", if we instead lead by example, hopefully they'll follow our example, and we'll be in a better position from which to ask them to improve their environmental policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First-world countries have already been through the industrialization phase of growth and benefited from it .
Would it really be fair to say to the the now-developing countries that they ca n't do what we did without giving them a viable alternative ?
Because of this , we ( not just the US , but all developed countries ) need to develop viable alternatives and implement them if we expect developing countries to do the same , we ca n't just say " do n't do what we did because it 's bad " without giving up the benefits we have accrued in the process without being hypocrites .
If we just tell them that , they 'll just say " fuck off , we 'll do it anyway " , if we instead lead by example , hopefully they 'll follow our example , and we 'll be in a better position from which to ask them to improve their environmental policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First-world countries have already been through the industrialization phase of growth and benefited from it.
Would it really be fair to say to the the now-developing countries that they can't do what we did without giving them a viable alternative?
Because of this, we (not just the US, but all developed countries) need to develop viable alternatives and implement them if we expect developing countries to do the same, we can't just say "don't do what we did because it's bad" without giving up the benefits we have accrued in the process without being hypocrites.
If we just tell them that, they'll just say "fuck off, we'll do it anyway", if we instead lead by example, hopefully they'll follow our example, and we'll be in a better position from which to ask them to improve their environmental policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463331</id>
	<title>Re:Easy alternative</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245870720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Managing cows isn't something that is necessary. Cows get all their nutrients from plants, all of their methane is Co2 stored in those plants, the green house value coming out of the cows in the form of methane will match the amount of GHGs in the plants they eat.</p><p>If cows didn't eat the plants, they would just die off, shed leaves and whatever, and release all of their stored GHGs naturally when they decompose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Managing cows is n't something that is necessary .
Cows get all their nutrients from plants , all of their methane is Co2 stored in those plants , the green house value coming out of the cows in the form of methane will match the amount of GHGs in the plants they eat.If cows did n't eat the plants , they would just die off , shed leaves and whatever , and release all of their stored GHGs naturally when they decompose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Managing cows isn't something that is necessary.
Cows get all their nutrients from plants, all of their methane is Co2 stored in those plants, the green house value coming out of the cows in the form of methane will match the amount of GHGs in the plants they eat.If cows didn't eat the plants, they would just die off, shed leaves and whatever, and release all of their stored GHGs naturally when they decompose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457617</id>
	<title>Breaking: Cows Detonating All Over Canada!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245834060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They can't burp or fart. There's flash and a big beefy explosion that smells like barbeque, eh."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They ca n't burp or fart .
There 's flash and a big beefy explosion that smells like barbeque , eh .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They can't burp or fart.
There's flash and a big beefy explosion that smells like barbeque, eh.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239</id>
	<title>Will this really work?</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1245868500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A cow that burps less will fart more.  Unless the methane coming out of the rear is less than the methane coming out of the front, this won't work.</p><p>Personally, I think it would be a lot more effective (and it makes more sense) to genetically engineer the <i>methane-producing</i> bacteria in their digestive tract, solving the problem at the root of the cause.  Of course, you'd have to make bacteria that are more efficient than their natural counterparts; but this can be done faster and cheaper than raising generations of genetically engineered cattle would be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A cow that burps less will fart more .
Unless the methane coming out of the rear is less than the methane coming out of the front , this wo n't work.Personally , I think it would be a lot more effective ( and it makes more sense ) to genetically engineer the methane-producing bacteria in their digestive tract , solving the problem at the root of the cause .
Of course , you 'd have to make bacteria that are more efficient than their natural counterparts ; but this can be done faster and cheaper than raising generations of genetically engineered cattle would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A cow that burps less will fart more.
Unless the methane coming out of the rear is less than the methane coming out of the front, this won't work.Personally, I think it would be a lot more effective (and it makes more sense) to genetically engineer the methane-producing bacteria in their digestive tract, solving the problem at the root of the cause.
Of course, you'd have to make bacteria that are more efficient than their natural counterparts; but this can be done faster and cheaper than raising generations of genetically engineered cattle would be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459305</id>
	<title>Re:Feed them what nature intended</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245840180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but as NekSnappa said "...I'm much more concerned with the nitrogen run-off from all of the poultry farms...", well, if you feed the farm animals what they are supposed to eat and fertilize the land the way nature intended it to be fertilized most of the man-made problems cause by industrializing the food industry go away.</p><p>Then we just have to figure out how to feed all these people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but as NekSnappa said " ...I 'm much more concerned with the nitrogen run-off from all of the poultry farms... " , well , if you feed the farm animals what they are supposed to eat and fertilize the land the way nature intended it to be fertilized most of the man-made problems cause by industrializing the food industry go away.Then we just have to figure out how to feed all these people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but as NekSnappa said "...I'm much more concerned with the nitrogen run-off from all of the poultry farms...", well, if you feed the farm animals what they are supposed to eat and fertilize the land the way nature intended it to be fertilized most of the man-made problems cause by industrializing the food industry go away.Then we just have to figure out how to feed all these people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28468941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28467523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28481907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28461805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28465563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28466813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28461377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28588283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28464405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_1710252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28467523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28461805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455493
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458737
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459193
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469911
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28466813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455465
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463135
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455941
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457111
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459415
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460857
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462315
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28468941
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462423
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28481907
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28469233
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462003
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460263
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463863
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458723
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457797
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463331
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455369
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456707
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28588283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28464405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28461377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28463527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28460673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28459021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28457919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28462487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28458801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_1710252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28456301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28455839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_1710252.28465563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
