Cattle have more light than shadows
With the advancement of scientific knowledge, the true role of cattle production in greenhouse gas emissions can be elucidated in relation to other sectors of the economy.
As soon as the FAO released the “Long Shadow of Cattle” in 2006, the cows came under suspicion and came under criticism. Among other disasters, they tried to show that the gases emitted by cattle were a major factor in global warming and climate change. Its authors have credited emissions from other non-agricultural sectors, such as fuel producers, transporters, refrigerators, retailers, traders, etc., to the cattle “carbon account”.
Although the calculation attributed 18% of global emissions to cows, a subsequent recalculation (2013) reduced this figure to an alarming 14.5%. Only one step has been taken between these figures and the launch of an aggressive campaign to reduce consumption of meat and dairy products.
Today we find inconsistencies in these reports: if the national inventory assigns emissions to the industries that actually produce them, it is not lawful to assign them in parallel with livestock. This will be a case of duplicate accounting. When this duplication is omitted and only biogenic emissions (of metabolic origin) from cattle are calculated, this figure falls by less than 5%. In addition, this percentage decreases from year to year as fossil fuel consumption increases. What lesson do we have? That the calculation method determines the quantity and that the number may mislead public opinion.
We know that methane, which is released from crawling animals, is a powerful greenhouse gas. Recent publications differ in their estimates, but cattle account for between 17 and 24% of global emissions. The rest would come from other sources. Among them, two things need to be clarified:
- While other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) may exist in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries, methane decomposes and loses its warming potential in about ten years. This means that the stability of the gases is incomparable and adjustments to the calculations are inevitable.
- Cattle synthesize methane from carbon, which was already in the air and which was previously obtained by photosynthesis from the plants they consume. Livestock does not add more carbon to the atmosphere; It just handles what already exists. The opposite is happening in industries that burn fossil fuels: every year they add new volumes of carbon to the atmosphere, without interruption. Statistics confirm this: in 1995, about 17% of global emissions came from the rural sector; In 2021, this figure will be reduced to less than 7.5%. Of the remaining 92.5%, almost 70% comes from fossil energy-dependent industries. So watch out for strategies that focus on livestock from these industries!
Carbon footprint, which measures emissions per kilogram of product, is another concept to consider. The method always produces an asymmetry that is repeated: a kilogram of beef can emit 40 to 70 times more carbon than a kilogram of grain or other plant products. This contrast affects the reputation of the cattle. But if we calculate emissions per product per hectare instead of using a kg product as a benchmark, the difference between cattle and vegetable products can change significantly. Again, the results vary according to the method used.
From a domestic perspective, it is important to ask ourselves how much Argentine cows emit and what impact they have on global warming. According to 2019 global statistics, Argentine cattle account for about 0.16% of global emissions. At much lower than 1%, it is clear that its impact on global warming is negligible What practical point would it make to reduce the cattle population in a country that feeds on and generates foreign currency from it?
Exhaust
What has been said so far tells part of the story: about emissions. The second part makes us look at the carbon that is trapped in our vast agricultural lands. Our country has a giant platform for photosynthesis that can capture and accumulate organic carbon in plant biomass and soil.
Since we have several field measurements, we can now only work on hypotheses. But we should not be surprised if a positive net balance if carbon sequestration and accumulation in rural areas exceeds their emissions. There is a methodological challenge to be explored.
Summary, The long shadow of cattle diminishes every time science shines new things. As we understand it, we realize that carbon inventory methods are not fully resolved and give rise to uncertainty. Although our country declares an inventory that is tailored to an internationally accepted methodology, these figures do not necessarily reflect the reality of Argentine livestock. The real impact of methane on global warming and carbon sequestration on our pastures is a matter of two expectations. As the debate continues, a farmer concerned about the emissions of his cows may be advised not to take a priori guilt for sins he has not committed..
Author-Correspondent of the National Academy of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine
Source: La Nacion
Smith Charles is a talented entertainment journalist and author at The Nation View. He has a passion for all things entertainment and writes about the latest movies, TV shows, music, and celebrity news. He’s known for his in-depth interviews with actors, musicians, and other industry figures, and his ability to provide unique perspectives on the entertainment industry.