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 $1.1 billion, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab’s inception in 1965. Follow PNNL on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.
The Joint Global Change Research Institute is a unique partnership formed in 2001 between the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland. The PNNL staff associated with the center are world renowned for expertise in energy conservation and understanding of the interactions between climate, energy production and use, economic activity and the environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These people certainly need to get a life. Go on, go for a run, get breathing deeply, produce more CO2. It will help the plants grow.
I wonder if anyone has done a study on how much extra energy it takes to grow crops where they don’t want to grow, when they don’t want to grow there?
They are keeping carbon in the news and that may have been the objective.
They estimated how much is excreted and counted that as a carbon source, but I don’t see any indication that they tracked how much of the excretion was deposited as sediment and thus went into a carbon sink. Nor how much excretion was recycled to plants.
There is no aspect of your life, not one, that these !@ur momisugly##$s cannot use ‘global warming’ as an excuse to control.
The color you paint your house, the light bulb in your table lamp, the food you eat … nothing is beyond the reach of the Carbon Cops.
Really? A major population center in southern Alabama and it’s not Mobile? You had better check your math and data. There ain’t nuthin’ down there but catfish and watermelons.
Gary Mount says:
August 4, 2011 at 4:55 am
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.
You’re welcome. You’ll be receiving a bill shortly. Hey, entertainment aint free.
Perhaps on a sadder note, the amount of money spent on producing this garbage could have saved many tens of thousands from starving to death in Africa, or provided a decent education for thousands of Third World children.
I hate this type of argument, but the DOE might just have easily burnt the money, which would have been just as useful as the information this study has provided.
bananabender says:
August 4, 2011 at 4:59 am
“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.
Using Israel as an example, it takes more energy to produce and irrigate bananas and some fresh veggies than the cost of freight for imports. Most decisions are based on fuel costs and not carbon units.
Actually Anthony, although in a way it is crap science, at least the science part came to the right (and expected) realization: “net zero” carbon as a whole. If you want to think about it a bit less caustically, consider this: the fudge factors now are at least known, so that people who measure CO2 who might say, “goddamned Californians! Look at how much they’re emitting” should now be more tempered into saying, “California continues to show its population tracking carbon emissions, just as Iowa remains a growth-period sink”. Not quite “crap” science, unless you want to see it as such. Maybe that it went from obscure journal to hot-blogging, now that is probably more exposure than it deserved.
I heard this recently on NPR “Talk of the Nation”: http://www.npr.org/books/titles/138144042/just-food-where-locavores-get-it-wrong-and-how-we-can-truly-eat-responsibly
The argument was that locally grown food wasn’t lower carbon, but often higher. Basically, transportation costs are such a small percentage of the total they weren’t worth discussing.
In the heart of a city, in the neon lit basement of a large building, a team of white coated scientists plot the destiny of the world. Adjusting complex climate models, turning in their hands a globe of the world, computing intricate import and export transport computations, they work long into the night. For they are visionaries, eco-fascists saving the earth.
Leon Brozyna says:
August 4, 2011 at 4:31 am
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
Back in the 70’s and late 80’s what was then Battelle NW , was a good lab. I contracted pilot service for them out of the Hanford area. i wouldn’t be too hard on them, they have to come up with ways of spending our money to stay in business, This one is a bit creative, Bravo! (Sierra)
though, it is…
A study needs to be done on how much CO2 is released doing studies about CO2.
Posting gnomes attack -the sunspots!-sorry..
I, for one, am glad I have this study to point out to me that food contains…..carbon! Who would have thought it was possible?
Ooops, my bad, so …
“probably the biggest load of crap I’ve seen in quite some time.”
Anthony, you realize, we non-scientific types depend on you to put all this stuff in laymen’s terms, and this is about the purest statement I have ever read. Thank you for boiling it down to the nuts and bolts – I get it!
Two apples are fruit. An apple and a banana are two fruits. Don’t mess with the Grammar police Buddy.
CRAP (carbon residue and propagation) Like one comment suggests, there is twice as much oxygen in CO2, therefore we should refer to oxygen mapping. Additionally, there are 180,000 parts per million as apposed to 400 ppm in the atmosphere. Far more influencial than the CRAP. The whole thing stinks!
Climate Research Anthropogenic Psychosis
For me it’s onion rings, beer batter for optimum results.
The highest value use of this study is as an example of the kind of government waste of resources that could and should be cut. We simply can no longer afford this nonsense.
You guys are missing the key breakthrough here –
This must be the secret source of Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. The fruits and vegetables ship into the city and cause higher temperatures. Those vegans are at the heart of this, I am sure of it. And Pachauri wants us all to become vegetarians .. oh the irony!
– a bit of humor 😉
omnologos says:
August 4, 2011 at 3:04 am
I thought CO2 was well-mixed ?
=====
It probably is, but the CO2 folks do measurements beyond the “continuous” monitoring at the Mauna Loa Observatory. Those show maximum levels near the equator falling off a bit nearer the poles. Presumably there is/are circulations that move CO2 around and the decrease (after removing seasonal effects) poleward is due to sinking of CO2 by the ground/biosphere/ocean in the higher latitudes.
The only ‘data’ here was a few CO2 measurements.
The Dept. of Agriculture numbers they cite are not ‘data’ because they are about food production and consumption, with no knowledge of how much ‘carbon’ is ‘spewed’ by transportation. They must be itching to shut down all those eeevil trucks & trains & ships. Why the nerve of all those fat consumers wanting food from faraway. Every city block shall hereby be self-sufficient in food production!
Too bad they crashed both CO2-measuring satellites, or they’d have actual, worldwide CO2 data, no handwaving needed..
But then said data might show that the increasing CO2 concentrations are caused as much by the oceans as by people, and that would be politically incorrect. (Maybe that’s really why they both crashed, from the same fairing glitch too. Can some consipiracy theorists work on that one?)