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

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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since “they” keep referring to Carbon Dioxide as Carbon, and bearing in mind the proportions (both numerical and mass) of the elements in said compound, I propose in future to refer to the said Carbon Dioxide as “Oxygen”. That should confuse things nicely!
“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.”
Now, there’s yer’ problem. All dressed up and no where to go.
True but weez got more than enough Czars to make up for it.
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.
OK. So now somebody tracks every bit of carbon on Earth? This and the previous post made me believe that the date is April 1, 2012 and I did a Rip van Winkle — even if a short one…
Track every bit of Carbon? Ok S. McIntyre is right — climate scientists “make things up”. There is no other explanation for this. It is otherwise known as a fantasy world… We can’t get the weather right — but claim we can predict climate. We can’t track thermometers in all the world even — and those we track are not placed that well and yet we can track every bit of carbon????? We need another Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) to document the recent interest in Climate… The authors clearly are Hatters…
What a load of … wait, who pays for such stupid junk … no, don’t tell me, let me guess … we did … our tax dollars hard at work … while the rest of us look for work …
That’s a good one Fritz, maybe even good enough to fund a whole new study of its own to map methane emissions, (we wouldn’t want to step on the toes of our fellow distinguished CO2 mappers ya know..). And just to gain some notoriety in the House Ways and Means Committee, let’s figure out a way to work in a correlation between various farm subsidies and their individual methane impact around the country.
Whoa! I just had another idea! After the people eat the food then … THEY move as well so we need to study where they go too. Just because they ate the food in Rio Linda doesn’t mean they stayed there to digest it. I think the American tax payer is getting short changed by this half-a**ed ‘study, who could disagree that they deserve the most expensive investigation money can buy?
Completely OT, but in the sprit of CRAP and the grammar police, whatever happened to uncountable nouns in US English? Fruits? Do you feed corns to your sheeps?
I would like to thank the American taxpayer for funding this ‘science’ for it has provided me with several minutes of entertainment.
Yours truly, your Canadian competition.
“Food miles” are nonsense. It is often far more energy efficient to ship food across the globe to distribution centres and then on to supermarkets than it is to drive to the local farmers market to buy fresh produce.
Anyone who doesn’t like the carbon aspect of farming is free to not eat.
Here in the UK Tesco are proudly promoting their “Zero Carbon Stores”. When I challenged them that all they could sell in a zero carbon store was water and salt, (which they could not wrap or place in any plastic container) and that they could not allow staff or customers in a zero carbon space the PR lady waffled on about the fact that it was timber construction. So I pointed out that they could not use timber in a zero carbon store either … Lost cause – she just did not get the irony.
Coming to a Mall near you soon – your very own Tesco Zero Carbon Store.
We’re proud to announce that we have just opened two more zero-carbon stores in Bourne, Lincolnshire and Welshpool, Powys – it’s all part of our long-term goal to be a zero-carbon business by 2050
http://www.tesco.com/greenerliving/greener_tesco/what_tesco_is_doing/tesco_zero_carbon_stores.page
“A zero carbon business!” Whatever next????
Alan the Brit: Nope, this won’t lead to protectionism. If it’s pursued as policy, it will lead to stopping all agriculture in the US and getting our food ONLY from foreign countries.
Protectionism (favoring our own production) is ABSOLUTELY UNTHINKABLE AND UNIMAGINABLE to our elites. Their sole goal is to eliminate ALL economic activity here (except, of course, for credit default swaps and money-market manipulation) and put ALL real economic activity in China. They’ve been working toward this goal for 30 years, and this little study will help them to do for agriculture what they’ve already done for heavy industry.
That’s why I don’t ever buy or eat Organic food; it’s way overpriced, and it’s loaded with that poisonous carbon (US Supremes said so). Looks like it is time for us to start making food out of rocks (and water) just like Mother Gaia does; that will please PETA and the Pacific National Laboratory Plant worshippers.
Don’t those red cities have a lot of cars that make carbon; so most of that crap doesn’t even come from the agricultural products. Some midwest farmer gets about two cents (gross) for all of the carbon he puts into a five dollar box of Raisin Bran, those city slickers eat.
By the way; for the edification of the Pacific National Laboratory geniuses; in the USA, cities are almost universally BLUE; it is those agricultural regions of the USA that are RED.
Thread winner!
/Mr Lynn
The red and blue areas look a lot like a template for a carbon tax.
There is a rather easy solution to you city carbon emitters…….. quit eating. Then, you, too, can be a sink. In what manner does this study provide any utility to anything? So, urban areas tend to be emitters and rural areas tend to be sinks. I wish they would have just picked up the phone and asked someone instead of wasting all of this time, energy, and money.
“After eating plants, animals and humans release the plants’ carbon as either carbon dioxide while breathing or as methane during digestion.”
Of course, they ignore the fact that we cannot digest a lot of this carbon as we, and may other animals, cannot digest cellulose. It’s called roughage! And as feces, it does not necessarily all go to methane as it is used by many other organisms in their metabolism as it breaks down.
Simple is as simple (Stupid) does.
The bottom line to all this:
Who the HECK cares? If they care, we should find out what’s wrong with them and get them treatment. OR we should be very careful as they have an evil political agenda or are the minions of same.
I was looking at the higher resolution version of the map http://www.pnl.gov/news/images/photos/20110803115601149.jpg and find it rather poor in its support of the study’s conclusion that “the most agriculturally active regions, shown in blue, are carbon sinks while the regions with larger populations, shown in red, are carbon sources.”
Seriously, the New York City area is supposed to be carbon neutral? The Phoenix area is neutral? St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas are net carbon sinks? Atlanta, Tampa, and Nashville are neutral? This does not even make sense to me. Am I missing something obvious here?
Murray Grainger says:
August 4, 2011 at 5:11 am
“A zero carbon business! Whatever next????”
I predict they will soon become a “zero revenue” business… [LOL!]
I do not see anybody tracking the movement of carbon in the rivers and streams or in the rain. Perhaps we need to track butterflies as they cross state boundaries and tax the people for allowing flowers to grow and attract them.
Think of the amount of carbon the birds are moving around as they migrate! OMG!
Has anybody tracked the tonnage of carbon that moves as mail?
Is some part of the country being carbon enriched with too much junk mail?
Is junk mail a carbon sink?
I see huge funding possibilities as we worry about every little aspect of this paramount and mammoth NONISSUE.
Mike M says:
August 4, 2011 at 4:37 am
Fritz says: Places that grow beans are also exporting methane (another GHG) to the red zones…
“That’s a good one Fritz, maybe even good enough to fund a whole new study of its own to map methane emissions, (we wouldn’t want to step on the toes of our fellow distinguished CO2 mappers ya know..). And just to gain some notoriety in the House Ways and Means Committee, let’s figure out a way to work in a correlation between various farm subsidies and their individual methane impact around the country.”
==============================================================
And if you’re going to give congressional testimony regarding the serious nature of the global methane problem, be sure to pull a “Hansen;” make sure everyone at the hearing gets a high-fiber lunch (heavy on the salad and beans) and seal the room. It will be easy to convince the committee to take immediate action on the methane problem as it will be obviously “worse than we thought.” ;o)
Mike M says:
August 4, 2011 at 3:08 am
I might be wrong, Mike, but I suspect Kasuha was being sarcastic.
Hector Pascal says:
August 4, 2011 at 4:52 am
Completely OT, but in the sprit of CRAP and the grammar police, whatever happened to uncountable nouns in US English? Fruits? Do you feed corns to your sheeps?
Painful, isn’t it? You’ll find loaves of bread at the grocery here with 12 grains in them. Only 12! Cheapskates. The other grains have clearly been fed to the sheeps and cattles.
And we have the same problem in New Zealand. We produce the lowest cost, highest quality milk in the world……from grass!! We are the largest, if not one of the top three traders of milk and milk based produces in the world and because the cows (and sheep) burp we produce methane. So to show what a great country we are we put in place a carbon trading scheme (so far cows and sheep excluded). But if we were not producing food for the world I suspect we would be close to a net zero carbon country. Plus if we did not produce the food we do for export, it would cost other people in other countries more than it does now. So the citizens of New Zealand now pay more for any thing that has a carbon content, so that we can reduce our 0.11% contribution.
I’m searching for a nice cave to live in as you read this……………………………
Let’s look at the bright side: When the wind quits blowing and the air comes to a standstill, the CO2 level of the air in corn fields is reduced to the point that the corn quits growing (and this applies to any other crop). The best antidote would be a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere–achieved as a consequence of an overal elevated concentration, say in response to burning fossil fuels (the major contributor to the overall amount). This argument could be used to justify or even encourage additional CO2 emissions worldwide. Plants would benefit greatly as would people indirectly.
The alternative is to have most of the people in the red areas move to the blue areas so their CO2 effluent is more readily available to CO2-starved plants, but we all know that will never happen.