Mapping the guilt of fruits and vegetables out of state

From DOE/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, probably the biggest load of crap I’ve seen in quite some time. I realize that’s harsh,  and I don’t think I’ve ever used that sentence to describe a scientific study, but there’s really no other way to say it when we have massive imports of fruits and vegetables from other countries, and they are worried about carbon in crops crossing state lines and regions in the USA. But the sad part is, this sort of “science” is so bloody obvious a fifth grader could tell you that “Their calculations showed that the most agriculturally active regions, shown in blue, are carbon sinks while the regions with larger populations, shown in red, are carbon sources.”

Carbon hitches a ride from field to market

Agriculture’s mobile nature makes predicting regional greenhouse gas impacts more complex

Based on US crop production, scientists determined which American regions are carbon sinks, or those that take in more carbon than release it, and carbon sources, or those that release more carbon than they take in. Their calculations showed that the most agriculturally active regions, shown in blue, are carbon sinks while the regions with larger populations, shown in red, are carbon sources. Credit: PNNL

 

RICHLAND, Wash. – Today, farming often involves transporting crops long distances so consumers from Maine to California can enjoy Midwest corn, Northwest cherries and other produce when they are out of season locally. But it isn’t just the fossil fuel needed to move food that contributes to agriculture’s carbon footprint.

New research published in the journal Biogeosciences provides a detailed account of how carbon naturally flows into and out of crops themselves as they grow, are harvested and are then eaten far from where they’re grown. The paper shows how regions that depend on others to grow their food end up releasing the carbon that comes with those crops into the atmosphere.

“Until recently, climate models have assumed that the carbon taken up by crops is put back into nature at the same place crops are grown,” said the paper’s lead author, environmental scientist Tristram West of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “Our research provides a more accurate account of carbon in crops by considering the mobile nature of today’s agriculture.”

West works out of the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland. His co-authors are researchers at PNNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Colorado State University.

Carbon, carbon everywhere

Carbon is the basis of life on Earth, including plants. During photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and convert it into carbon-based sugars needed to grow and live. When a plant dies, it decomposes and releases carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. After eating plants, animals and humans release the plants’ carbon as either carbon dioxide while breathing or as methane during digestion.

But the geography of this natural carbon cycle has shifted with the rise of commercial agriculture. Crops are harvested and shipped far away from where they’re grown, instead of being consumed nearby. As a result, agriculturally active regions take in large amounts of carbon as crops grow. And regions with larger populations that consume those crops release the carbon.

The result is nearly net zero for carbon, with about the same amount of carbon being taken in as is released at the end. But the difference is where the carbon ends up. That geography matters for those who track every bit of carbon on Earth in an effort to estimate the potential impacts of greenhouse gases.

Digging into data

Agricultural carbon is currently tracked through two means: Towers placed in farm fields that are equipped with carbon dioxide sensors, and computer models that crunch data to generate estimates of carbon movement between land and the atmosphere. But neither method accounts for crops releasing carbon in areas other than where they were grown.

To more accurately reflect the carbon reality of today’s agricultural crops, West and his co-authors combed through extensive data collected by various government agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Looking at 17 crops – including corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton – that make up 99 percent of total U.S. crop production, the researchers calculated the carbon content of harvested crops by county for each year from 2000 to 2008.

Next they used population numbers and data on human food intake to estimate, by age and gender, how much carbon from crops humans consume. On the flip side, the co-authors also calculated how much carbon humans release when they exhale, excrete and release flatulence. They did the same analysis on livestock and pets.

But not all food makes it to the dinner table. The researchers accounted for the crops that are lost due to spoilage or during processing, which ranges from 29 percent of collected dairy to as much as 57 percent of harvested vegetables. Beyond food, they determined the amount of carbon that goes into plant-based products such as fabric, cigarettes and biofuels. And they noted how much grain is stored for future use and the crops that are exported overseas.

National crop carbon budget

Combining all these calculations, the researchers developed a national crop carbon budget. Theoretically, all the carbon inputs should equal the carbon outputs from year to year. The researchers came very close, with no more than 6.1 percent of the initial carbon missing from their end calculations. This indicated that the team had accounted for the vast majority of the carbon from America’s harvested crops.

The team found overall that the crops take in – and later return – about 37 percent of the U.S.’s total annual carbon dioxide emissions, but that amount varies by region. Carbon sinks, or areas that take in more carbon than release it, were found in the agriculturally active regions of the Midwest, Great Plains and lands along the southern half of the Mississippi River. Regions with larger populations and less agriculture were found to be carbon sources, or areas that release more carbon than they take in. The calculations indicated the Northeast, Southeast and much of the Western U.S. and Gulf Coast were carbon sources. The remaining regions – the western interior and south-central U.S. – flip-flopped between being minor carbon sinks or sources, depending on the year.

Informing policy decisions

Next, West would like his team’s methods applied to forestry, which also involves the movement of carbon-containing products from one locale to another. Comprehensive carbon calculations for agriculture and forestry could be used in connection with previous carbon estimates that were based on carbon dioxide sensor towers or carbon computer models.

“These calculations substantially improve what we know about the movement of carbon in agriculture,” West said. “Reliable, comprehensive data like this can better inform policies aimed at managing carbon dioxide emissions.” This research was funded by NASA through the North American Carbon Program.

###

REFERENCE: West, T. O., Bandaru, V., Brandt, C. C., Schuh, A. E., and Ogle, S. M.: Regional uptake and release of crop carbon in the United States, Biogeosciences, 8, 2037-2046, doi: 10.5194/bg-8-2037-2011, 2011. Published online Aug. 3, 2011. http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/2037/2011/

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a Department of Energy Office of Science national laboratory where interdisciplinary teams advance science and technology and deliver solutions to America’s most intractable problems in energy, the environment and national security. PNNL employs 4,900 staff, has an annual budget of nearly $1.1 billion, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab’s inception in 1965. Follow PNNL on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

The Joint Global Change Research Institute is a unique partnership formed in 2001 between the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland. The PNNL staff associated with the center are world renowned for expertise in energy conservation and understanding of the interactions between climate, energy production and use, economic activity and the environment.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

94 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jorgekafkazar
August 4, 2011 1:26 am

Crap? Oh, come now. It’s not that good.

Kasuha
August 4, 2011 1:33 am

I’d not call this study load of crap, it may map only small part of the carbon cycle but it’s a step in the right direction IMO.
Now we can see it’s about time to start building CO2 pipes to send the excess CO2 from industrial regions straight to crop fields where they need it most – instead of releasing it to the atmosphere which is unreliable in delivery of this important fertilizer to where we need it.

Dave
August 4, 2011 1:35 am

Insanity knows no state borders

August 4, 2011 1:47 am

As I understand it cr*p is the base substance of fertiliser, fertiliser stimulates plants, plants absorb CO2 (Not “carbon”) and provide Oxygen …
This study doesn’t do any of that.

charles nelson
August 4, 2011 1:49 am

For heaven’s sake, could some one tell me just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin..please?

Myrrh
August 4, 2011 1:58 am

“Until recently, climate models have assumed that the carbon taken up by crops is put back into nature at the same place crops are grown,” said the paper’s lead author, environmental scientist Tristram West of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
AGWScience fiction scientists haven’t assumed that in their models, their premise is that the atmosphere is empty space and carbon dioxide an ideal gas which diffuses through all the atmosphere around the Earth to mix in thoroughly and stay up in the atmosphere accumulating.
AGWScience fiction does not have: New research published in the journal Biogeosciences provides a detailed account of how carbon naturally flows into and out of crops themselves as they grow,
Which is old research, well known from countless studies in the centuries carbon dioxide has been measured as well as ongoing local measurements studies. Carbon dioxide is extremely reluctant to travel far from home because it is heavier than air, it takes an outside force such as wind to get it moving and that movement is generally very localised by local wind patterns and local rainfall, which is carbonic acid, and when all is calm again, by the heavier than air carbon dioxide displacing air to come back to where crops are waiting for it. And, where the plants themselves are also producing it when not doing photosynthesis when they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, but like us taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide.
So, has this study taken into consideration that wind patterns and such from areas which are ‘not carbon sinks but producers’ will also be producers in releasing it into wind patterns which may well even take it back home to where the plants were growing for the crop?
And when will they stop using “carbon” when they’re talking about carbon dioxide?

August 4, 2011 1:58 am

“These calculations substantially improve what we know about the movement of carbon in agriculture,” West said. “Reliable, comprehensive data like this can better inform policies aimed at managing carbon dioxide emissions.”
And just what will these “informed policies” do differently than they would otherwise? I agree that this must be the biggest, most pointless heap of bovine ordure evah. And I’ve seen some large heaps in my time. BTW Kasuha – CO2 isn’t just “an important fertilizer”, it’s the ONLY source of carbon for plants.

August 4, 2011 1:58 am

Sheesh! A load of crap doesn’t even begin to describe this. I take it these clowns really didn’t do too much “research” on where crops are grown. I guess a “field” trip was out of order? California grows something like 80 to 85% of the brocolli, lettuce,strawberries,citrus, avocadoes, tree nuts, garlic,and tomatoes in the US. That’s not counting the grapes(both eating & wine),rice,cotton,apples and animal feeds(corn,alfalfa,oat hay and oats etc) grown in the state.(yeah and wheat too!) California is not L.A. There’s a reason the number one dollar product of the state is, and has been,and probably always will be agricultural products.
So, how do they figure it is a “source” by their stupid reasoning?

Shanghai Dan
August 4, 2011 2:07 am

I think we’re overlooking the real significance of this study:
We’re running the risk of running out of carbon in those blue areas! What will happen when we’re out of carbon because it’s all been stacked in the red areas? How can we grow food?!?!? Clearly we need some sort of International Body to help redistribute the carbon back to whence it came!
/s

NovaReason
August 4, 2011 2:13 am

On the flip side, the co-authors also calculated how much carbon humans release when they exhale, excrete and release flatulence.
For the more grammatically inclined in the audience, this sentence is the winner. To make it even better, they also drop the Oxford comma on other terms in series, meaning this was INTENDED to say that you breathe out flatulence. “products such as fabric, cigarettes and biofuels.

H.R.
August 4, 2011 2:16 am

“The result is nearly net zero for carbon, with about the same amount of carbon being taken in as is released at the end. But the difference is where the carbon ends up. That geography matters for those who track every bit of carbon on Earth in an effort to estimate the potential impacts of greenhouse gases.”
I thought CO2 was a well mixed in the atmosphere, so it shouldn’t matter where it’s released. But as they said, it’s a net zero, so what good does it do track it if it has no impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Oh wait… tracking CO2 is a green job. Now I get it.

Alan the Brit
August 4, 2011 2:22 am

jorgekafkazar says:
August 4, 2011 at 1:26 am
Crap? Oh, come now. It’s not that good.
Wonderfully put, Sir!
You Colonials are a little behind the times, but of course you don’t have a Prince Charles*, (or A Right Charlie, as I like to call him) like we do! He who has been talking to his plants for years, presumably it is from those that he gets most of his barking environmental (the emphasis being on the last two syllables) ideas! This might be a new form for you of protectionism, we shall see. We had a similar piece of “Crap” from the UK Soil Association (run by a good mate of you know who*) a while ago, who wanted to stop some African counrty importing its produce into the UK under the banner of Carbon Footprint, yet said country’s ambassador showed that despite being labour intensive, their product had a lower Carbon Footprint than similar UK produce, despite flying it in!

Eyal Porat
August 4, 2011 2:24 am

It is this kind of “science” that shows these people has completely lost it.
You realize the imminent conclusion from all this kind of bull is that mankind should be perished. It is just too dangerous to the environment.
Total and utter waste of money, human ours and paper.

August 4, 2011 2:26 am

I have the sceintific team for all this, S-H-1-T

Alexander K
August 4, 2011 2:47 am

This ‘study’ is not even as useful as crap as it cannot be recycled as fertiliser. It is similar to the loud Green whinges in the UK about the ‘food miles’ nonsense which has been thoroughly and serially debunked, but the Greenists still scream like spoiled children that one must ‘buy local’, which is not very useful for achieving a balanced and healthy diet in this day and age.

Don K
August 4, 2011 2:57 am

This one looks to be just plain weird. According to their map, California’s central valley — arguably the richest agricultural region on the planet — is a carbon source; the heavily populated East Coast metroplex is more or less neutral; and there is a substantial carbon source in the rather rural and comparatively thinly populated region along the Virginia-North Carolina border. The map doesn’t seem to support their their conclusions.

August 4, 2011 3:04 am

I thought CO2 was well-mixed ?

Mike M
August 4, 2011 3:08 am

Kasuha says: ….it’s a step in the right direction IMO.

And what ‘direction’ is that exactly? Perhaps you mean that we should want further study to break it down even further? How about discerning between various crops? Why gee, maybe corn really isn’t as bad as we thought and it’s those pesky tomatoes moving about that are so hard to estimate?
Yeah, let’s waste another few million to study that one too while China builds new coal fired power plants every week. Get this straight in your mind, this BS cannot possibly have any direction at all because there is no possible DESTINATION for it beyond an attempt to justify requests for more government funding at OUR expense to keep these rent seekers employed.
If you disagree and think that this ‘study’ might lead to something useful, even IF the CAGW nonsense had any basis at all, then I’m certain a lot of people here would enjoy hearing what that useful ‘thing’ would be? We could use a good laugh once in a while…

Dr. John M. Ware
August 4, 2011 3:24 am

Mercy, mercy, mercy, what a flap about nothing! With all this information, what will the government do? All it can do, it seems to me, is to regulate how food can be transported, which they already do. Will they say that Chicago can’t have Maine lobsters, or Miami can’t have Indiana corn? “Studies” like this one are based on the premise that CO2 is bad, bad, BAD in any form. What they are trying to do is to change our atmosphere into a flatusphere, at least in our thinking. Stupid research based on false premises; how did this make it through peer review?

Bloke down the pub
August 4, 2011 3:33 am

And as CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, the relevance of their findings is what exactly?

UK Sceptic
August 4, 2011 3:49 am

If carbon is so awful maybe the people reponsible for this crap should cut all food containing carbon from their diets? Maybe they’ll finally wise up before they starve to death…

LearDog
August 4, 2011 4:02 am

The explanation by popuation doesn’t quite make sense to me – in that the Washington-NJ-NY-Boston corridor is mostly neutral, as is Chicago.
What DID catch my eye is that giant red swath through the Piney Woods of East Texas – where timber must be counted as a crop…? But how that carbon sink is calculated as a carbon source escapes me at the moment. I need to read the paper.
The explanation for east Texas isn’t population though. Maybe I need another cup of coffee….

August 4, 2011 4:03 am

Places that grow beans are also exporting methane (another GHG) to the red zones…

tango
August 4, 2011 4:04 am

what a load of crap most of us are waking up to all the crap .the crap about global warming the crap about sea levels rising . the crap about no rain or crap heat just about crap its no crap it is all crap

1 2 3 4