Via No Tricks Zone: Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, has published research that shows:
“…there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate” and the “warming potential of anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions has been exaggerated.”
Domestic Livestock and Its Alleged Role in Climate Change
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 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.”
Key Points:
1. “In order to get the effective manmade part of the emissions from managed ecosystems, one has to subtract the baseline emissions of the respective native ecosystems or of the pre-climate-change-managed ecosystems from those of today’s agro-ecosystems (Figure 4). Omitting this correction leads to a systematic overestimation of farm-born non-CO2 GHG emissions. Scientific publications generally do not take this consideration into account, as farm-born CH4 and N2O emissions are consistently interpreted at a 100% level as an additional anthropogenic GHG source, just like fossil fuel-born CO2. As the mentioned IPCC guidelines [2007] are taken for the ultimate reference, this severe methodological deficiency propagated through the scientific literature.”
2. “Dung patches concentrate the nitrogen ingested from places scattered across the pasture. Nichols et al. [2016] found no significant differences between emission factors from the patches and the rest of the pasture, which means the same amount of nitrous oxide is emitted whether or not the herbage passes livestock’s intestines. However, the IPCC and FAO do consider mistakenly all nitrous oxide leaking from manure as livestock-born and therefore manmade.”
3. “Between 1990 and 2005, the world cattle population rose by more than 100 million head(according to FAO statistics). During this time, atmospheric methane concentration stabilized completely. These empirical observations show that livestock is not a significant player in the global methane budget [Glatzle, 2014]. This appreciation has been corroborated by Schwietzke et al. [2016] who suggested that methane emissions from fossil fuel industry and natural geological seepage have been 60–110% greater than previously thought.”
4. “When looking to the global distribution of average methane concentrations as measured by ENVISAT (Environmental Satellite) [Schneising et al., 2009] and the geographical distribution of domestic animal density, respectively [Steinfeld et al., 2006], no discernible relationship between both criteria was found [Glatzle, 2014].”
5. “Although the most recent estimates of yearly livestock-born global methane emissions came out 11% higher than earlier estimates [Wolf et al., 2017], we still cannot see any discernible livestock fingerprint in the global methane distribution(Figure 6).”
6. “The idea of a considerable livestock contribution to the global methane budget relies on theoretical bottom-up calculations. Even in recent studies, e.g., [Mapfumo et al., 2018], just the emissions per animal are measured and multiplied by the number of animals. Ecosystemic interactions and baselines over time and space are generally ignored [Glatzle, 2014]. Although quite a number of publications, such as the excellent most recent FCRN report (Food Climate Research Network) [2017], do discuss extensively ecosystemic sequestration potentials and natural sources of GHGs, they do not account for baseline emissions from the respective native ecosystems when assessing manmade emissions of non-CO2 GHGs from managed ecosystems. This implies a systematic overestimation of the warming potential, particularly when assuming considerable climate sensitivity to GHG emissions.”
8. “[E]ven LA Chefs Column [Zwick, 2018], in spite of assuming a major global warming impact of methane, came to the conclusion: ‘When methane is put into a broader rather than a reductive context, we all have to stop blaming cattle (‘cows’) for climate change.’”
7. “[W]e could not find a domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of the atmospheric methane concentration. Consequently, in science, politics, and the media, the climate impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been systematically overstated. Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“the global methane budget relies on theoretical bottom-up calculations”
Don’t tell me that wasn’t deliberate! Fnaar fnaaaar
Whatever cattle contribute to methane production, it needs to be understood that cattle are merely today’s domesticated producers of beef products (meat, hides, dairy, etc.) that have mostly replaced prior native herds of wild creatures, including the bison, deer, elk etc. that formerly occupied the same lands now domesticated.
Today’s US beef cattle herd is about 89 million head (total inventory). Estimates of bison population alone pre-Colombian range from about 60 million to 75 million. Bison are much larger creatures than domesticated cattle, with bulls up 2,000 pounds, cows at 1,000 pounds, or an average of 1,500 pounds. Beef cattle, even those artificially fattened up on grains, average about 1,300 pounds. Then thrown in other large mammals that roamed the grasslands including deer, elk, etc. and it seems that today’s North American lands are not necessarily producing any more animals than formerly lived here.
But we are feedling one helluva lot more people with today’s beef herds than were fed by the formerly wild herds in North America.
North American Indian populations in the great plains where the buffalo formerly roamed never amounted to more than a couple hundred thousand inhabitants, even before the Colombian exchange. The relatively few that lived in the Great Plains were actually hugely wasteful of the resource too, contrary to popular misconception. Before the Indians obtained the horse and could freely roam the prairie grasslands to keep up with the buffalo herds, they would resort to identifying cliff areas and attempt to drive entire herds over the cliffs where the poor beasts tumbled over the edge and died hundreds at a time, so the tribes would feast for awhile with an excess of buffalo meat, then starve at other times. Not very efficient or conservative of the resource.
One of the powerful memories of my youth was the dioramas at the Simthsonian Natural History museum showing herds of various ancient mammals roaming the dry and cold plains during the pleistocene. Somehow, the methane produced by these herbivores was insufficient to warm the Earth over tens of thousands of years. Likewise, the millions of bicen roaming North America were insufficient to prevent to Little Ice Age.
As is often the case, I find the comments as interesting as the original article.
In this case, I learned that methane emissions from cows would have occurred regardless whether the grain/hay/grass passed through the cow or not.
Did anyone in the California legislature or regulatory regime learn this before setting out to hamstring their state dairy industry with methane collection boondoggles for dairy cows?
Not if the rich, politically connected scumbags lobbying for their methane collection boondoggles have anything to say about it…
This particular topic, which has been around for some time, provided one of my initial entries into the global warming debate. Drover’s Journal, whose ostensible aim is to aid the beef production industry, in maybe 1989 published an article about how much cattle production was contributing to global warming–it was some ludicrous value like 0.004C. I wrote the journal and pointed out this was a completely theoretical calculation which could never be substantiated by actual measurements because, first and foremost it was too tiny to measure.
This was also one of my first lessons that writing letters to the editor is an utterly ineffective means of combating superstition.
Direct and indirect land use change as a result of ranching, forest loss. Climate change.
Animal feed such as soya and maize has meant clearing of millions of kilometers of forest. Mato Grasso is an example. When the vegetation is stripped and drained the soil peat carbon is oxidized, and leaches out.
There is the lifecycle emissions of the farm to plate for growing and distribution of animal feeds, btw a very poor ratio of energy gain considering calories from protein feed when converted to meat.
The water footprint is astronomical, the nitrates that leach into the rivers and cause dead zones are also reducing oxygen levels and releasing Nitrous Oxide.
So your argument has merit, but it is only a very small part of the cumulative emissions from the beef industry.
Karel .
People like you who quote rubbish studies that are formulated by activists make me sick.
The growing population in the 60s and 70s lead to so many predictions by the experts that the worlds population would very soon outstrip the worlds food supply .
These predictions have been proven to be trash as the worlds farmers have supplied increasing amounts of food to feed the world .
We are very lucky that the worlds prosperity is driven by the capitalist system where individuals have property rights and are generally free to make decisions about the crops they grow and the animals they farm .
Farmers around the world react to price signals and can soon find out that their country or the world market will not pay them enough to make a living .
This is called supply and demand and has worked well for over 140 years .
Most animal production in New Zealand is pasture based with only a small amount of supplements fed in the dairy industry .
Out farmers here are up against nitrate discharges to water and irrigation of farm land in mainly in the South Island .
The farmers in the South Island correctly state that if they do not store water that flows out to sea during the spring thaw that the water will only irrigate the ocean .
There is only one feed lot in New Zealand fattening beef and over 99% of our beef are fed almost entirely on pasture
To finish I will again state that methane from farmed livestock is a NON problem that has been dreamed up by activists to bluff the world.
Karel said;
“nitrates that leach into the rivers and cause dead zones are also reducing oxygen levels and releasing Nitrous Oxide”
A lightning bolt not only makes O-Zone, it makes nitrous oxide and nitrogen compounds like nitric acid. The amount created Per lightning strike depends, they estimate a 55 gallon drum with every lightning flash. A summer thunderstorm with thousands of flashes can produce enough nitrates the equivalent of an overturned tanker spilling all its contents into the rivers. This fertilizer does not create “Dead zones”, just the opposite, it creates live zones that is so abundant that it will choke the fish that feast on this life. These micro organisms drift with the current at the very basis of the food chain in which all the oceans need to thrive.
Yes sir. Moot point in more ways than one.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/16/beef-and-climate-change/
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890646,00.html
India has 283 million cows, which of the transcendental greens, (did I spell that right?) will propose killing them to “save the planet”?
Thanks for that information Ian. You have a fellow traveller:
Frank M. Mitloehner is Professor of Animal Science and Air Quality Extension Specialist, University of California, Davis. He writes at the Conversation Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate.
“A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.”
Mitloehner’s article: https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968
My synopsis: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/climate-ideology-bad-nutritional-advice/
I see 14 publications in the Web of Science for Dr. Albrecht Glatzle since 1986, out of which only 8 are journal articles. For most researchers, that kind of a record is not at all good unless of course one of those papers got him/her a Nobel prize. I would be very careful in taking his opinion as a researcher.
As someone who milked the family cow every morning before school,
I can testify that the vast majority of emissions from a cow are belches.
I never thought to attempt to quantify the percentage.
For the same reason quoted from above, CH4 listed as human emissions
from rice paddies are simply a delay in the process of converting to
CO2. I will explain below.
” Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”
Natural gas rises all around the world, but it is not evenly distributed. In areas with
adequate moisture, it is oxidized by the near surface aerobic microbial culture and
becomes topsoil.
In areas where that land is dedicated to rice growing, when the paddies are dry,
the up welling gas is oxidized, enriching the soil, and it rises into the atmosphere
as CO2. This CO2 is not properly accounted for in any inventory that I have seen.
When the paddies are flooded, the water forces the gases to rise
faster than the resident culture can oxidize it. The score keepers falsely call the
resulting gas in the atmosphere human emissions. Some researches, noting the
gas, try to explain it as being emitted by the rice. Not in my botany book.
What is being observed is simply natural gas which has been delayed in its
oxidation, not created by humans.
Re. Methane, well as with us human the burning of
food in all animals stomachs produce gases.
So what is the problem, the grasses grow and as a part of the
process of photosynthesis they absorb CO2, and fortunately in
the process oxygen is released.
Then the grasses are consumed by all animals in one form or
another, digestion works its magic and methane and CO2 are
released.
So other animals eat the grass eaters, i.e. meat, but that is just
processed grass.
It all goes around and around, and the World continues.
MJE VK5ELL