Is burning cow pies (dried cow manure) safe?











up vote
20
down vote

favorite












Is it safe to cook and or heat using "cow chips"? Cow dung, also known as cow pats, cow pies or cow manure is and has been used to fuel fires where firewood is not available.




Ruminant manure constituted an important factor in American settlement on the Plains, providing fuel for heat and cooking in the near total absence of wood or coal Source




Are there any safety concerns with using cow droppings as fuel?










share|improve this question




























    up vote
    20
    down vote

    favorite












    Is it safe to cook and or heat using "cow chips"? Cow dung, also known as cow pats, cow pies or cow manure is and has been used to fuel fires where firewood is not available.




    Ruminant manure constituted an important factor in American settlement on the Plains, providing fuel for heat and cooking in the near total absence of wood or coal Source




    Are there any safety concerns with using cow droppings as fuel?










    share|improve this question


























      up vote
      20
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      20
      down vote

      favorite











      Is it safe to cook and or heat using "cow chips"? Cow dung, also known as cow pats, cow pies or cow manure is and has been used to fuel fires where firewood is not available.




      Ruminant manure constituted an important factor in American settlement on the Plains, providing fuel for heat and cooking in the near total absence of wood or coal Source




      Are there any safety concerns with using cow droppings as fuel?










      share|improve this question















      Is it safe to cook and or heat using "cow chips"? Cow dung, also known as cow pats, cow pies or cow manure is and has been used to fuel fires where firewood is not available.




      Ruminant manure constituted an important factor in American settlement on the Plains, providing fuel for heat and cooking in the near total absence of wood or coal Source




      Are there any safety concerns with using cow droppings as fuel?







      fire fuel






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 10 at 22:34









      Charlie Brumbaugh

      45.1k15125254




      45.1k15125254










      asked Dec 10 at 19:02









      James Jenkins

      17.8k1064162




      17.8k1064162






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          27
          down vote



          accepted










          It is apparently not safe, among the poor today who have to use it as they have no alternatives, it leads to all sorts of health problems.
          It is also a worse polutant than burning wood.




          On the reverse side of the environmental equation, raw biomass is known to emit a number of particulates as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Burning solid biomass directly contributes to reduction in air quality, often to a greater degree than oil or other hydrocarbons. Burning animal waste creates more dioxin and chlorophenol pollutants than burning wood does. This is particularly harmful when it is burned indoors without venting.



          PAHs are well-known carcinogens having the potential to damage DNA and cause birth defects. Dioxins are derivatives of PAHs and are known to be highly toxic to fish and wildlife. A dioxin level as low as 0.5 micrograms/kilogram (about 0.0000005% by mass) are lethal to some species. Chlorophenol is also an aromatic compound. It is commonly used in pesticides, herbicides, and disinfectants. It is one of the primary components of mothballs. Chlorophenol is less toxic than the above compounds, with lethal doses in the range of 600 milligrams/kilogram or about 50% by mass. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels can lead to damage to red blood cells and to the immune system.




          Source




          The burning of biomass in the developing world for heating and cooking results in high indoor particle concentrations. Long-term exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) has been associated with increased rates of acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive lung disease and cancer.




          Combustion of dried animal dung as biofuel results in the generation of highly redox active fine particulates




          According to health experts, the smoke released in the burning process contains hazardous gases. Studies show that by inhaling these, people suffer from diseases. There are specially made chulhas or stoves for using of dung cakes. Usually these cakes consist of groundnut husk; paddy straw is also used. When the cakes are burnt, dangerous gases are released, which is then inhaled by people. .




          Source




          The study by Jadavpur University's School of Environmental Studies says the region's groundwater is contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical which gets into paddy through contaminated water. Cattle that feed on contaminated paddy husk and water produce dung that is likely to contain arsenic.



          Researchers say while the dung is burnt in kitchen, as much as 25 per cent of the arsenic in fumes could be absorbed by the respiratory tract of people and lead to diseases such as persistent cough and chronic bronchitis. The arsenic particles in the air might also settle on food and water and contaminate it.




          Cow dung smoke could cause arsenic poisoning



          Note



          In 2010 there was an effort to create and distribute better stoves to avoid these problems but while better, it seems that they still had safety problems.




          But “clean” is a nebulous term. Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves




          These cheap, clean stoves were supposed to save millions of lives. What happened?






          share|improve this answer



















          • 5




            Note that the last issue (arsenic poisoning) is peculiar to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has very high, but naturally occurring, levels of arsenic in it's sub-soils and bedrock. Deep tube wells are dug for water, but the wells pass through layers of soil and rock that contain lots of arsenic, leaving the water, and the irrigated fields contaminated with high levels of arsenic. Then when cows eat the grass from the contaminated fields their feces become contaminated too.
            – Charles E. Grant
            Dec 10 at 20:26






          • 3




            The first two quotes seem to imply indoor use... I'm wondering if you found anything that suggests, for example, an outdoor fire pit.
            – Roflo
            Dec 10 at 21:28






          • 1




            @Roflo The only people who use it have no choice, which seems to suggest that if you have a choice, you should use something else
            – Charlie Brumbaugh
            Dec 10 at 21:39






          • 5




            +1 but I wonder: people who are burning dung for fuel are poor and probably have inefficient stoves. Wood burns cleaner in a more efficient stove. What would happen if we burnt dung in something like a rocket stove?
            – Chris H
            Dec 10 at 22:03






          • 2




            its important to read the sources rather than the quotes - this is a very misleading answer. The toxicity of these agents are vastly overstated although if you read the article the numbers are correct (yes ingesting a mass of 50% of your total body weight of just about anything is probably toxic, and I am sure that there are some gnats that for which .0000005% - yup that's 7 zeros-) worth of a toxin will in fact be toxic.
            – Jim B
            Dec 11 at 14:41




















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          Smoke has it's hazards. For 30 years I cooked over open fires for about 6 weeks a year. It's irritating as heck, but I don't have obvious problems. That may be about as good as the 2 pack a day smoker at age 65 saying, "Hasn't kilt me yet"



          Burning any form of biomass works better if the material is dry. Damp material uses a lot of energy to evaporate water. The resulting lower temperatures make for incomplete combustion.



          ANY form of stove can improve the situation by creating some form of focused draft. A chimney can move the smoke far enough away from the cook to reduce his exposure by orders of magnitude.



          In the settling of the American west, cow chips and road apples (horse...) were used for cooking as there was little else to burn. Collecting this stuff was a job for kids. Stuff that wasn't dry, but was solid enough to pick up could be put in a canvas slung under the wagon to dry. You find similar use by aboriginal tribes that lived on plains or steppes.



          Depending on what you are collecting and where, there may be risk of parasite transfer. I don't know that the tape worm that infects cows also infects people, but I'd expect it to. There are doubtless bacteria in meadow muffins that will leave you unhappy too.



          Off the top of my head I would consider this aspect to be the higher hazard.






          share|improve this answer




























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Dried cattle dung is somewhat safer than wood in so far as it produces fewer sparks and therefore is less likely to set the surroundings on fire. This is especially important if you have an open fire inside a dwelling, e.g. in Mongolian yurts before the 20th century. Nowadays yurts always have an iron stove, so this is less of a concern. But people in the countryside still burn dried cattle dung ("argal" in Mongolian) because it is often easier accessible than firewood.



            Argal is actually somewhat associated with healthy country life, sung about in songs, and was even used by the Great Khans in the past:




            The house was all covered inside with cloth of gold, and there was a fire of briars and wormwood roots--which grow here to great size--and of cattle dung, in a grate in the center of the dwelling.




            (Wilhelm of Rubruck at the court of Möngkhe Khan, http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/rubruck.html)






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.


















              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "395"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2foutdoors.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f21234%2fis-burning-cow-pies-dried-cow-manure-safe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              27
              down vote



              accepted










              It is apparently not safe, among the poor today who have to use it as they have no alternatives, it leads to all sorts of health problems.
              It is also a worse polutant than burning wood.




              On the reverse side of the environmental equation, raw biomass is known to emit a number of particulates as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Burning solid biomass directly contributes to reduction in air quality, often to a greater degree than oil or other hydrocarbons. Burning animal waste creates more dioxin and chlorophenol pollutants than burning wood does. This is particularly harmful when it is burned indoors without venting.



              PAHs are well-known carcinogens having the potential to damage DNA and cause birth defects. Dioxins are derivatives of PAHs and are known to be highly toxic to fish and wildlife. A dioxin level as low as 0.5 micrograms/kilogram (about 0.0000005% by mass) are lethal to some species. Chlorophenol is also an aromatic compound. It is commonly used in pesticides, herbicides, and disinfectants. It is one of the primary components of mothballs. Chlorophenol is less toxic than the above compounds, with lethal doses in the range of 600 milligrams/kilogram or about 50% by mass. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels can lead to damage to red blood cells and to the immune system.




              Source




              The burning of biomass in the developing world for heating and cooking results in high indoor particle concentrations. Long-term exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) has been associated with increased rates of acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive lung disease and cancer.




              Combustion of dried animal dung as biofuel results in the generation of highly redox active fine particulates




              According to health experts, the smoke released in the burning process contains hazardous gases. Studies show that by inhaling these, people suffer from diseases. There are specially made chulhas or stoves for using of dung cakes. Usually these cakes consist of groundnut husk; paddy straw is also used. When the cakes are burnt, dangerous gases are released, which is then inhaled by people. .




              Source




              The study by Jadavpur University's School of Environmental Studies says the region's groundwater is contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical which gets into paddy through contaminated water. Cattle that feed on contaminated paddy husk and water produce dung that is likely to contain arsenic.



              Researchers say while the dung is burnt in kitchen, as much as 25 per cent of the arsenic in fumes could be absorbed by the respiratory tract of people and lead to diseases such as persistent cough and chronic bronchitis. The arsenic particles in the air might also settle on food and water and contaminate it.




              Cow dung smoke could cause arsenic poisoning



              Note



              In 2010 there was an effort to create and distribute better stoves to avoid these problems but while better, it seems that they still had safety problems.




              But “clean” is a nebulous term. Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves




              These cheap, clean stoves were supposed to save millions of lives. What happened?






              share|improve this answer



















              • 5




                Note that the last issue (arsenic poisoning) is peculiar to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has very high, but naturally occurring, levels of arsenic in it's sub-soils and bedrock. Deep tube wells are dug for water, but the wells pass through layers of soil and rock that contain lots of arsenic, leaving the water, and the irrigated fields contaminated with high levels of arsenic. Then when cows eat the grass from the contaminated fields their feces become contaminated too.
                – Charles E. Grant
                Dec 10 at 20:26






              • 3




                The first two quotes seem to imply indoor use... I'm wondering if you found anything that suggests, for example, an outdoor fire pit.
                – Roflo
                Dec 10 at 21:28






              • 1




                @Roflo The only people who use it have no choice, which seems to suggest that if you have a choice, you should use something else
                – Charlie Brumbaugh
                Dec 10 at 21:39






              • 5




                +1 but I wonder: people who are burning dung for fuel are poor and probably have inefficient stoves. Wood burns cleaner in a more efficient stove. What would happen if we burnt dung in something like a rocket stove?
                – Chris H
                Dec 10 at 22:03






              • 2




                its important to read the sources rather than the quotes - this is a very misleading answer. The toxicity of these agents are vastly overstated although if you read the article the numbers are correct (yes ingesting a mass of 50% of your total body weight of just about anything is probably toxic, and I am sure that there are some gnats that for which .0000005% - yup that's 7 zeros-) worth of a toxin will in fact be toxic.
                – Jim B
                Dec 11 at 14:41

















              up vote
              27
              down vote



              accepted










              It is apparently not safe, among the poor today who have to use it as they have no alternatives, it leads to all sorts of health problems.
              It is also a worse polutant than burning wood.




              On the reverse side of the environmental equation, raw biomass is known to emit a number of particulates as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Burning solid biomass directly contributes to reduction in air quality, often to a greater degree than oil or other hydrocarbons. Burning animal waste creates more dioxin and chlorophenol pollutants than burning wood does. This is particularly harmful when it is burned indoors without venting.



              PAHs are well-known carcinogens having the potential to damage DNA and cause birth defects. Dioxins are derivatives of PAHs and are known to be highly toxic to fish and wildlife. A dioxin level as low as 0.5 micrograms/kilogram (about 0.0000005% by mass) are lethal to some species. Chlorophenol is also an aromatic compound. It is commonly used in pesticides, herbicides, and disinfectants. It is one of the primary components of mothballs. Chlorophenol is less toxic than the above compounds, with lethal doses in the range of 600 milligrams/kilogram or about 50% by mass. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels can lead to damage to red blood cells and to the immune system.




              Source




              The burning of biomass in the developing world for heating and cooking results in high indoor particle concentrations. Long-term exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) has been associated with increased rates of acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive lung disease and cancer.




              Combustion of dried animal dung as biofuel results in the generation of highly redox active fine particulates




              According to health experts, the smoke released in the burning process contains hazardous gases. Studies show that by inhaling these, people suffer from diseases. There are specially made chulhas or stoves for using of dung cakes. Usually these cakes consist of groundnut husk; paddy straw is also used. When the cakes are burnt, dangerous gases are released, which is then inhaled by people. .




              Source




              The study by Jadavpur University's School of Environmental Studies says the region's groundwater is contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical which gets into paddy through contaminated water. Cattle that feed on contaminated paddy husk and water produce dung that is likely to contain arsenic.



              Researchers say while the dung is burnt in kitchen, as much as 25 per cent of the arsenic in fumes could be absorbed by the respiratory tract of people and lead to diseases such as persistent cough and chronic bronchitis. The arsenic particles in the air might also settle on food and water and contaminate it.




              Cow dung smoke could cause arsenic poisoning



              Note



              In 2010 there was an effort to create and distribute better stoves to avoid these problems but while better, it seems that they still had safety problems.




              But “clean” is a nebulous term. Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves




              These cheap, clean stoves were supposed to save millions of lives. What happened?






              share|improve this answer



















              • 5




                Note that the last issue (arsenic poisoning) is peculiar to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has very high, but naturally occurring, levels of arsenic in it's sub-soils and bedrock. Deep tube wells are dug for water, but the wells pass through layers of soil and rock that contain lots of arsenic, leaving the water, and the irrigated fields contaminated with high levels of arsenic. Then when cows eat the grass from the contaminated fields their feces become contaminated too.
                – Charles E. Grant
                Dec 10 at 20:26






              • 3




                The first two quotes seem to imply indoor use... I'm wondering if you found anything that suggests, for example, an outdoor fire pit.
                – Roflo
                Dec 10 at 21:28






              • 1




                @Roflo The only people who use it have no choice, which seems to suggest that if you have a choice, you should use something else
                – Charlie Brumbaugh
                Dec 10 at 21:39






              • 5




                +1 but I wonder: people who are burning dung for fuel are poor and probably have inefficient stoves. Wood burns cleaner in a more efficient stove. What would happen if we burnt dung in something like a rocket stove?
                – Chris H
                Dec 10 at 22:03






              • 2




                its important to read the sources rather than the quotes - this is a very misleading answer. The toxicity of these agents are vastly overstated although if you read the article the numbers are correct (yes ingesting a mass of 50% of your total body weight of just about anything is probably toxic, and I am sure that there are some gnats that for which .0000005% - yup that's 7 zeros-) worth of a toxin will in fact be toxic.
                – Jim B
                Dec 11 at 14:41















              up vote
              27
              down vote



              accepted







              up vote
              27
              down vote



              accepted






              It is apparently not safe, among the poor today who have to use it as they have no alternatives, it leads to all sorts of health problems.
              It is also a worse polutant than burning wood.




              On the reverse side of the environmental equation, raw biomass is known to emit a number of particulates as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Burning solid biomass directly contributes to reduction in air quality, often to a greater degree than oil or other hydrocarbons. Burning animal waste creates more dioxin and chlorophenol pollutants than burning wood does. This is particularly harmful when it is burned indoors without venting.



              PAHs are well-known carcinogens having the potential to damage DNA and cause birth defects. Dioxins are derivatives of PAHs and are known to be highly toxic to fish and wildlife. A dioxin level as low as 0.5 micrograms/kilogram (about 0.0000005% by mass) are lethal to some species. Chlorophenol is also an aromatic compound. It is commonly used in pesticides, herbicides, and disinfectants. It is one of the primary components of mothballs. Chlorophenol is less toxic than the above compounds, with lethal doses in the range of 600 milligrams/kilogram or about 50% by mass. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels can lead to damage to red blood cells and to the immune system.




              Source




              The burning of biomass in the developing world for heating and cooking results in high indoor particle concentrations. Long-term exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) has been associated with increased rates of acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive lung disease and cancer.




              Combustion of dried animal dung as biofuel results in the generation of highly redox active fine particulates




              According to health experts, the smoke released in the burning process contains hazardous gases. Studies show that by inhaling these, people suffer from diseases. There are specially made chulhas or stoves for using of dung cakes. Usually these cakes consist of groundnut husk; paddy straw is also used. When the cakes are burnt, dangerous gases are released, which is then inhaled by people. .




              Source




              The study by Jadavpur University's School of Environmental Studies says the region's groundwater is contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical which gets into paddy through contaminated water. Cattle that feed on contaminated paddy husk and water produce dung that is likely to contain arsenic.



              Researchers say while the dung is burnt in kitchen, as much as 25 per cent of the arsenic in fumes could be absorbed by the respiratory tract of people and lead to diseases such as persistent cough and chronic bronchitis. The arsenic particles in the air might also settle on food and water and contaminate it.




              Cow dung smoke could cause arsenic poisoning



              Note



              In 2010 there was an effort to create and distribute better stoves to avoid these problems but while better, it seems that they still had safety problems.




              But “clean” is a nebulous term. Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves




              These cheap, clean stoves were supposed to save millions of lives. What happened?






              share|improve this answer














              It is apparently not safe, among the poor today who have to use it as they have no alternatives, it leads to all sorts of health problems.
              It is also a worse polutant than burning wood.




              On the reverse side of the environmental equation, raw biomass is known to emit a number of particulates as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Burning solid biomass directly contributes to reduction in air quality, often to a greater degree than oil or other hydrocarbons. Burning animal waste creates more dioxin and chlorophenol pollutants than burning wood does. This is particularly harmful when it is burned indoors without venting.



              PAHs are well-known carcinogens having the potential to damage DNA and cause birth defects. Dioxins are derivatives of PAHs and are known to be highly toxic to fish and wildlife. A dioxin level as low as 0.5 micrograms/kilogram (about 0.0000005% by mass) are lethal to some species. Chlorophenol is also an aromatic compound. It is commonly used in pesticides, herbicides, and disinfectants. It is one of the primary components of mothballs. Chlorophenol is less toxic than the above compounds, with lethal doses in the range of 600 milligrams/kilogram or about 50% by mass. Long-term exposure to relatively high levels can lead to damage to red blood cells and to the immune system.




              Source




              The burning of biomass in the developing world for heating and cooking results in high indoor particle concentrations. Long-term exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) has been associated with increased rates of acute respiratory infections, chronic obstructive lung disease and cancer.




              Combustion of dried animal dung as biofuel results in the generation of highly redox active fine particulates




              According to health experts, the smoke released in the burning process contains hazardous gases. Studies show that by inhaling these, people suffer from diseases. There are specially made chulhas or stoves for using of dung cakes. Usually these cakes consist of groundnut husk; paddy straw is also used. When the cakes are burnt, dangerous gases are released, which is then inhaled by people. .




              Source




              The study by Jadavpur University's School of Environmental Studies says the region's groundwater is contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical which gets into paddy through contaminated water. Cattle that feed on contaminated paddy husk and water produce dung that is likely to contain arsenic.



              Researchers say while the dung is burnt in kitchen, as much as 25 per cent of the arsenic in fumes could be absorbed by the respiratory tract of people and lead to diseases such as persistent cough and chronic bronchitis. The arsenic particles in the air might also settle on food and water and contaminate it.




              Cow dung smoke could cause arsenic poisoning



              Note



              In 2010 there was an effort to create and distribute better stoves to avoid these problems but while better, it seems that they still had safety problems.




              But “clean” is a nebulous term. Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves




              These cheap, clean stoves were supposed to save millions of lives. What happened?







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Dec 11 at 1:28









              416E64726577

              1033




              1033










              answered Dec 10 at 19:58









              Charlie Brumbaugh

              45.1k15125254




              45.1k15125254








              • 5




                Note that the last issue (arsenic poisoning) is peculiar to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has very high, but naturally occurring, levels of arsenic in it's sub-soils and bedrock. Deep tube wells are dug for water, but the wells pass through layers of soil and rock that contain lots of arsenic, leaving the water, and the irrigated fields contaminated with high levels of arsenic. Then when cows eat the grass from the contaminated fields their feces become contaminated too.
                – Charles E. Grant
                Dec 10 at 20:26






              • 3




                The first two quotes seem to imply indoor use... I'm wondering if you found anything that suggests, for example, an outdoor fire pit.
                – Roflo
                Dec 10 at 21:28






              • 1




                @Roflo The only people who use it have no choice, which seems to suggest that if you have a choice, you should use something else
                – Charlie Brumbaugh
                Dec 10 at 21:39






              • 5




                +1 but I wonder: people who are burning dung for fuel are poor and probably have inefficient stoves. Wood burns cleaner in a more efficient stove. What would happen if we burnt dung in something like a rocket stove?
                – Chris H
                Dec 10 at 22:03






              • 2




                its important to read the sources rather than the quotes - this is a very misleading answer. The toxicity of these agents are vastly overstated although if you read the article the numbers are correct (yes ingesting a mass of 50% of your total body weight of just about anything is probably toxic, and I am sure that there are some gnats that for which .0000005% - yup that's 7 zeros-) worth of a toxin will in fact be toxic.
                – Jim B
                Dec 11 at 14:41
















              • 5




                Note that the last issue (arsenic poisoning) is peculiar to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has very high, but naturally occurring, levels of arsenic in it's sub-soils and bedrock. Deep tube wells are dug for water, but the wells pass through layers of soil and rock that contain lots of arsenic, leaving the water, and the irrigated fields contaminated with high levels of arsenic. Then when cows eat the grass from the contaminated fields their feces become contaminated too.
                – Charles E. Grant
                Dec 10 at 20:26






              • 3




                The first two quotes seem to imply indoor use... I'm wondering if you found anything that suggests, for example, an outdoor fire pit.
                – Roflo
                Dec 10 at 21:28






              • 1




                @Roflo The only people who use it have no choice, which seems to suggest that if you have a choice, you should use something else
                – Charlie Brumbaugh
                Dec 10 at 21:39






              • 5




                +1 but I wonder: people who are burning dung for fuel are poor and probably have inefficient stoves. Wood burns cleaner in a more efficient stove. What would happen if we burnt dung in something like a rocket stove?
                – Chris H
                Dec 10 at 22:03






              • 2




                its important to read the sources rather than the quotes - this is a very misleading answer. The toxicity of these agents are vastly overstated although if you read the article the numbers are correct (yes ingesting a mass of 50% of your total body weight of just about anything is probably toxic, and I am sure that there are some gnats that for which .0000005% - yup that's 7 zeros-) worth of a toxin will in fact be toxic.
                – Jim B
                Dec 11 at 14:41










              5




              5




              Note that the last issue (arsenic poisoning) is peculiar to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has very high, but naturally occurring, levels of arsenic in it's sub-soils and bedrock. Deep tube wells are dug for water, but the wells pass through layers of soil and rock that contain lots of arsenic, leaving the water, and the irrigated fields contaminated with high levels of arsenic. Then when cows eat the grass from the contaminated fields their feces become contaminated too.
              – Charles E. Grant
              Dec 10 at 20:26




              Note that the last issue (arsenic poisoning) is peculiar to Bangladesh. Bangladesh has very high, but naturally occurring, levels of arsenic in it's sub-soils and bedrock. Deep tube wells are dug for water, but the wells pass through layers of soil and rock that contain lots of arsenic, leaving the water, and the irrigated fields contaminated with high levels of arsenic. Then when cows eat the grass from the contaminated fields their feces become contaminated too.
              – Charles E. Grant
              Dec 10 at 20:26




              3




              3




              The first two quotes seem to imply indoor use... I'm wondering if you found anything that suggests, for example, an outdoor fire pit.
              – Roflo
              Dec 10 at 21:28




              The first two quotes seem to imply indoor use... I'm wondering if you found anything that suggests, for example, an outdoor fire pit.
              – Roflo
              Dec 10 at 21:28




              1




              1




              @Roflo The only people who use it have no choice, which seems to suggest that if you have a choice, you should use something else
              – Charlie Brumbaugh
              Dec 10 at 21:39




              @Roflo The only people who use it have no choice, which seems to suggest that if you have a choice, you should use something else
              – Charlie Brumbaugh
              Dec 10 at 21:39




              5




              5




              +1 but I wonder: people who are burning dung for fuel are poor and probably have inefficient stoves. Wood burns cleaner in a more efficient stove. What would happen if we burnt dung in something like a rocket stove?
              – Chris H
              Dec 10 at 22:03




              +1 but I wonder: people who are burning dung for fuel are poor and probably have inefficient stoves. Wood burns cleaner in a more efficient stove. What would happen if we burnt dung in something like a rocket stove?
              – Chris H
              Dec 10 at 22:03




              2




              2




              its important to read the sources rather than the quotes - this is a very misleading answer. The toxicity of these agents are vastly overstated although if you read the article the numbers are correct (yes ingesting a mass of 50% of your total body weight of just about anything is probably toxic, and I am sure that there are some gnats that for which .0000005% - yup that's 7 zeros-) worth of a toxin will in fact be toxic.
              – Jim B
              Dec 11 at 14:41






              its important to read the sources rather than the quotes - this is a very misleading answer. The toxicity of these agents are vastly overstated although if you read the article the numbers are correct (yes ingesting a mass of 50% of your total body weight of just about anything is probably toxic, and I am sure that there are some gnats that for which .0000005% - yup that's 7 zeros-) worth of a toxin will in fact be toxic.
              – Jim B
              Dec 11 at 14:41












              up vote
              2
              down vote













              Smoke has it's hazards. For 30 years I cooked over open fires for about 6 weeks a year. It's irritating as heck, but I don't have obvious problems. That may be about as good as the 2 pack a day smoker at age 65 saying, "Hasn't kilt me yet"



              Burning any form of biomass works better if the material is dry. Damp material uses a lot of energy to evaporate water. The resulting lower temperatures make for incomplete combustion.



              ANY form of stove can improve the situation by creating some form of focused draft. A chimney can move the smoke far enough away from the cook to reduce his exposure by orders of magnitude.



              In the settling of the American west, cow chips and road apples (horse...) were used for cooking as there was little else to burn. Collecting this stuff was a job for kids. Stuff that wasn't dry, but was solid enough to pick up could be put in a canvas slung under the wagon to dry. You find similar use by aboriginal tribes that lived on plains or steppes.



              Depending on what you are collecting and where, there may be risk of parasite transfer. I don't know that the tape worm that infects cows also infects people, but I'd expect it to. There are doubtless bacteria in meadow muffins that will leave you unhappy too.



              Off the top of my head I would consider this aspect to be the higher hazard.






              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                Smoke has it's hazards. For 30 years I cooked over open fires for about 6 weeks a year. It's irritating as heck, but I don't have obvious problems. That may be about as good as the 2 pack a day smoker at age 65 saying, "Hasn't kilt me yet"



                Burning any form of biomass works better if the material is dry. Damp material uses a lot of energy to evaporate water. The resulting lower temperatures make for incomplete combustion.



                ANY form of stove can improve the situation by creating some form of focused draft. A chimney can move the smoke far enough away from the cook to reduce his exposure by orders of magnitude.



                In the settling of the American west, cow chips and road apples (horse...) were used for cooking as there was little else to burn. Collecting this stuff was a job for kids. Stuff that wasn't dry, but was solid enough to pick up could be put in a canvas slung under the wagon to dry. You find similar use by aboriginal tribes that lived on plains or steppes.



                Depending on what you are collecting and where, there may be risk of parasite transfer. I don't know that the tape worm that infects cows also infects people, but I'd expect it to. There are doubtless bacteria in meadow muffins that will leave you unhappy too.



                Off the top of my head I would consider this aspect to be the higher hazard.






                share|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  Smoke has it's hazards. For 30 years I cooked over open fires for about 6 weeks a year. It's irritating as heck, but I don't have obvious problems. That may be about as good as the 2 pack a day smoker at age 65 saying, "Hasn't kilt me yet"



                  Burning any form of biomass works better if the material is dry. Damp material uses a lot of energy to evaporate water. The resulting lower temperatures make for incomplete combustion.



                  ANY form of stove can improve the situation by creating some form of focused draft. A chimney can move the smoke far enough away from the cook to reduce his exposure by orders of magnitude.



                  In the settling of the American west, cow chips and road apples (horse...) were used for cooking as there was little else to burn. Collecting this stuff was a job for kids. Stuff that wasn't dry, but was solid enough to pick up could be put in a canvas slung under the wagon to dry. You find similar use by aboriginal tribes that lived on plains or steppes.



                  Depending on what you are collecting and where, there may be risk of parasite transfer. I don't know that the tape worm that infects cows also infects people, but I'd expect it to. There are doubtless bacteria in meadow muffins that will leave you unhappy too.



                  Off the top of my head I would consider this aspect to be the higher hazard.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Smoke has it's hazards. For 30 years I cooked over open fires for about 6 weeks a year. It's irritating as heck, but I don't have obvious problems. That may be about as good as the 2 pack a day smoker at age 65 saying, "Hasn't kilt me yet"



                  Burning any form of biomass works better if the material is dry. Damp material uses a lot of energy to evaporate water. The resulting lower temperatures make for incomplete combustion.



                  ANY form of stove can improve the situation by creating some form of focused draft. A chimney can move the smoke far enough away from the cook to reduce his exposure by orders of magnitude.



                  In the settling of the American west, cow chips and road apples (horse...) were used for cooking as there was little else to burn. Collecting this stuff was a job for kids. Stuff that wasn't dry, but was solid enough to pick up could be put in a canvas slung under the wagon to dry. You find similar use by aboriginal tribes that lived on plains or steppes.



                  Depending on what you are collecting and where, there may be risk of parasite transfer. I don't know that the tape worm that infects cows also infects people, but I'd expect it to. There are doubtless bacteria in meadow muffins that will leave you unhappy too.



                  Off the top of my head I would consider this aspect to be the higher hazard.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 2 days ago









                  Sherwood Botsford

                  6,67911641




                  6,67911641






















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      Dried cattle dung is somewhat safer than wood in so far as it produces fewer sparks and therefore is less likely to set the surroundings on fire. This is especially important if you have an open fire inside a dwelling, e.g. in Mongolian yurts before the 20th century. Nowadays yurts always have an iron stove, so this is less of a concern. But people in the countryside still burn dried cattle dung ("argal" in Mongolian) because it is often easier accessible than firewood.



                      Argal is actually somewhat associated with healthy country life, sung about in songs, and was even used by the Great Khans in the past:




                      The house was all covered inside with cloth of gold, and there was a fire of briars and wormwood roots--which grow here to great size--and of cattle dung, in a grate in the center of the dwelling.




                      (Wilhelm of Rubruck at the court of Möngkhe Khan, http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/rubruck.html)






                      share|improve this answer








                      New contributor




                      Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        Dried cattle dung is somewhat safer than wood in so far as it produces fewer sparks and therefore is less likely to set the surroundings on fire. This is especially important if you have an open fire inside a dwelling, e.g. in Mongolian yurts before the 20th century. Nowadays yurts always have an iron stove, so this is less of a concern. But people in the countryside still burn dried cattle dung ("argal" in Mongolian) because it is often easier accessible than firewood.



                        Argal is actually somewhat associated with healthy country life, sung about in songs, and was even used by the Great Khans in the past:




                        The house was all covered inside with cloth of gold, and there was a fire of briars and wormwood roots--which grow here to great size--and of cattle dung, in a grate in the center of the dwelling.




                        (Wilhelm of Rubruck at the court of Möngkhe Khan, http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/rubruck.html)






                        share|improve this answer








                        New contributor




                        Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          Dried cattle dung is somewhat safer than wood in so far as it produces fewer sparks and therefore is less likely to set the surroundings on fire. This is especially important if you have an open fire inside a dwelling, e.g. in Mongolian yurts before the 20th century. Nowadays yurts always have an iron stove, so this is less of a concern. But people in the countryside still burn dried cattle dung ("argal" in Mongolian) because it is often easier accessible than firewood.



                          Argal is actually somewhat associated with healthy country life, sung about in songs, and was even used by the Great Khans in the past:




                          The house was all covered inside with cloth of gold, and there was a fire of briars and wormwood roots--which grow here to great size--and of cattle dung, in a grate in the center of the dwelling.




                          (Wilhelm of Rubruck at the court of Möngkhe Khan, http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/rubruck.html)






                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          Dried cattle dung is somewhat safer than wood in so far as it produces fewer sparks and therefore is less likely to set the surroundings on fire. This is especially important if you have an open fire inside a dwelling, e.g. in Mongolian yurts before the 20th century. Nowadays yurts always have an iron stove, so this is less of a concern. But people in the countryside still burn dried cattle dung ("argal" in Mongolian) because it is often easier accessible than firewood.



                          Argal is actually somewhat associated with healthy country life, sung about in songs, and was even used by the Great Khans in the past:




                          The house was all covered inside with cloth of gold, and there was a fire of briars and wormwood roots--which grow here to great size--and of cattle dung, in a grate in the center of the dwelling.




                          (Wilhelm of Rubruck at the court of Möngkhe Khan, http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/rubruck.html)







                          share|improve this answer








                          New contributor




                          Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer






                          New contributor




                          Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.









                          answered 2 days ago









                          Jan

                          413




                          413




                          New contributor




                          Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.





                          New contributor





                          Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






                          Jan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                          Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to The Great Outdoors Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2foutdoors.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f21234%2fis-burning-cow-pies-dried-cow-manure-safe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How did Captain America manage to do this?

                              迪纳利

                              南乌拉尔铁路局