Agriculture
As carbon cycles through living organisms such as humans or cattle, it is ingested in the solid and liquid form of plants, or meat from animals that ate plants, and contributes to the growth and reproduction of that organism. Partly respired as CO2 and CH4 it is eventually released and recycled through the process of death and decay. An organism cannot excrete or exhale more carbon that is originally inhaled or ingested so the carbon in this scenario does not represent a net increase in the atmospheric load.
Interestingly, White Oak’s LCA was conducted by Quantis, the very same third-party firm that conducted Impossible Burger’s latest LCA showing their product to be less environmentally destructive than conventional beef. What Impossible Burger seems to have conveniently omitted is that their GMO soy-based product is still a net carbon emitter in comparison to White Oak’s properly-managed livestock that create a net carbon sink.
The following graphics can be found in the article (excerpt from the book Sacred Cow) - Are Cow Farts Destroying the Planet?
| soil_c_review_kane_dec_4-final-v4.pdf |
Executive Summary
Carbon sequestration on agricultural lands is possible through a range of soil management strategies and could be substantial with widespread implementation. Sequestration of historic carbon emissions is now essential as mitigation alone is unlikely to stabilize our atmosphere. There are numerous management strategies for drawing carbon out of the atmosphere and holding it in the soil. These strategies vary in effectiveness across different climates, soil types, and geographies. There are still debates about the durability of sequestration in soil and about the precise conditions that maximize drawdown of carbon emissions. This paper explores how soil carbon is sequestered, the state of soil carbon research, and the debate on the extent of its potential. It offers a set of recommendations for ongoing research and highlights the many co-benefits to increasing soil carbon.
Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture
"The modeled removal of animals from the US agricultural system resulted in predictions of a greater total production of food, increases in deficient essential nutrients and excess of energy in the US population’s diet, a potential increase in foods/nutrients that can be exported to other countries, and a decrease of 2.6 percentage units in US GHG emissions. Overall, the removal of animals resulted in diets that are nonviable in the long or short term to support the nutritional needs of the US population without nutrient supplementation. The mixed impact of eliminating animals from US agriculture illustrates the need for food system evaluations and decisions to be made based on a description of the system and on direct and indirect effects of a change that are as encompassing as possible."
"The modeled removal of animals from the US agricultural system resulted in predictions of a greater total production of food, increases in deficient essential nutrients and excess of energy in the US population’s diet, a potential increase in foods/nutrients that can be exported to other countries, and a decrease of 2.6 percentage units in US GHG emissions. Overall, the removal of animals resulted in diets that are nonviable in the long or short term to support the nutritional needs of the US population without nutrient supplementation. The mixed impact of eliminating animals from US agriculture illustrates the need for food system evaluations and decisions to be made based on a description of the system and on direct and indirect effects of a change that are as encompassing as possible."
Firstly, as is widely recognised, grains cannot provide the full range of amino-acids, being generally deficient in lysine, and depending on the species other amino acids as well. To improve the amino acid profile of the diet, grains can be consumed with suitable legumes which tend to be deficient in different amino acids. However, when the study authors analysed various grain and legume systems, as well as soy beans, (which provides complete protein) they found that in each case dairy systems with supporting forage crops came out top for cost, energy and protein production.
Secondly, when considering farming systems that provide both adequate protein and calories there is inevitably going to be an excess of one or the other. In other words, food production systems that provide adequate calories as well as protein fall into two groups: those that produce an excess of non-protein calories, and those that have an excess of protein. The latter systems are more efficient, as excess dietary protein can be converted in the body to calories, whereas excess calories cannot be converted to protein. This is a very important argument worthy of considerable reflection.
Estimation of methane emissions from the U.S. ammonia fertilizer industry using a mobile sensing approach
A disturbing new study from researchers at Cornell University and the Environment Defense Fund has independently measured methane emissions from a number of ammonia fertilizer plants. The startling results suggest methane emissions are 100 times higher than industry estimates, and three times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency's estimate for all industry methane emissions in the United States.
A disturbing new study from researchers at Cornell University and the Environment Defense Fund has independently measured methane emissions from a number of ammonia fertilizer plants. The startling results suggest methane emissions are 100 times higher than industry estimates, and three times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency's estimate for all industry methane emissions in the United States.
When applied to an entire global population, the vegan diet wastes available land that could otherwise feed more people. That’s because we use different kinds of land to produce different types of food, and not all diets exploit these land types equally.
Grazing land is often unsuitable for growing crops, but great for feeding food animals such as cattle.
Perennial cropland supports crops that are alive year-round and are harvested multiple times before dying, including a lot of the grain and hay used to feed livestock.
Cultivated cropland is where you typically find vegetables, fruits and nuts.
The five diets that contained the most meat used all available crop and animal grazing land. The five diets using the least amount of meat—or none at all—varied in land use. But the vegan diet stood out because it was the only diet that used no perennial cropland at all, and, as a result, would waste the chance to produce a lot of food.
Considering their contribution to global warming, the sources and sinks of methane (CH4) should be accounted when undertaking a greenhouse gas inventory for grazed rangeland ecosystems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mitigation potential of current ecological management programs implemented in the main rangeland regions of China. The influences of rangeland improvement, utilization and livestock production on CH4 flux/emission were assessed to estimate CH4 reduction potential. Results indicate that the grazed rangeland ecosystem is currently a net source of atmospheric CH4. However, there is potential to convert the ecosystem to a net sink by improving management practices. Previous assessments of capacity for CH4 uptake in grazed rangeland ecosystems have not considered improved livestock management practices and thus underestimated potential for CH4 uptake. Optimal fertilization, rest and light grazing, and intensification of livestock management contribute mitigation potential significantly.
We conclude that grazing has the potential to increase CH4 uptake from the atmosphere and consequently, contribute positively to CH4 related part of C budget.
Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors.
The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies.
Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems.
However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through the scientific literature.
Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.”
The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race
The advent of agriculture was a watershed moment for the human race. It may also have been our greatest blunder.
The advent of agriculture was a watershed moment for the human race. It may also have been our greatest blunder.
Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we're still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it's unclear whether we can solve it. Suppose that an archaeologist who had visited from outer space were trying to explain human history to his fellow spacelings. He might illustrate the results of his digs by a 24-hour clock on which one hour represents 100,000 years of real past time. If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade, and that have so far eluded us?
Soil Carbon Cowboys
Website with some videos of sustainable animal farming practices
Website with some videos of sustainable animal farming practices
New research: synthetic nitrogen destroys soil carbon, undermines soil health
More synthetic nitrogen going onto commercial agriculture ventures will require increasing amounts to keep producing the yield required.
More synthetic nitrogen going onto commercial agriculture ventures will require increasing amounts to keep producing the yield required.
In the modern era of intensified agriculture, soils are generally managed as a commodity to maximize short-term economic gain. Unfortunately, this concept entirely ignores the consequences for a vast array of biotic and abiotic soil processes that aff ect air and water quality and most important, the soil itself.
Don’t believe me that our agricultural methods will destroy us? The evidence is unequivocal: it has already happened to every single civilisation built on annual agriculture!
A world without livestock farming is just a short, medium and long-term utopia. It is time for us to come back to more realistic positions based on facts. Removing livestock farming would be an absolute nonsense for humanity. But it does not mean that we do not need to improve our way of rearing animals, to respect them, to offer them a decent life and make sure that their slaughter is done without pain nor stress. We have to continue research and innovate in order to reduce the negative impacts of livestock farming and increase the services it provides to our societies. Research must provide knowledge and innovation in order to reduce impacts, improve livestock farming conditions and communicate on the services rendered by livestock farming in order to inform the public debate objectively. Above all, we should claim and defend that there cannot be a sustainable agriculture and food production without livestock farming.
Abstract:
“Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors. The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies. Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems. However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through scientific literature. Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.”
|
Full Study download
|
| ||
Regenerative farming might be environmentally healthy, but it could mean big benefits for the financial health of a farm as well — which is why some believe it could help save the small, independent farmer.
Alan Savory working to reverse desertification
