Removal of dairy cows would have minimal effect on ’emissions’, say researchers

Posted: January 11, 2021 by oldbrew in Agriculture, Emissions, ideology, research


Climate obsessives will have to find something else to try and bother the long-suffering public with.
– – –

The dairy industry in the United States is massive, says AgriMarketing .

It supplies dietary requirements to the vast majority of the population.

This same industry also contributes approximately 1.58 percent of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

A commonly suggested solution to reduce greenhouse gas output has been to reduce or eliminate this industry in favor of plant production.

A team of Virginia Tech researchers wanted to uncover the actual impact that these cows have on the environment.

The researchers found that the removal of dairy cows from the United States agricultural industry would only reduce greenhouse emissions by about 0.7 percent while significantly lowering the available supply of essential nutrients for humans.

“There are environmental impacts associated with the production of food, period. The dairy industry does have an environmental impact, but if you look at it in the context of the entire U.S. enterprise, it’s fairly minimal,” said Robin White, an associate professor in the Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences and a member of the research team.

“Associated with that minimal impact is a very substantial provision of high quality, digestible, and well-balanced nutrients for human consumption.”

White was part of a team that included scientists from the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and supported Dairy Management Inc. that examined a few different scenarios for dairy cattle in the United States that factored in current management practices, retirement, and depopulation from the United States agricultural industry.

White’s team looked at both the environmental and nutritional impact of three different scenarios.

Greenhouse gas emissions were unchanged in the herd management scenario, in which cattle become an export-only industry and the supply of available nutrients decrease.

In this economically realistic scenario, the industry stays similar to how it is now, but the United States no longer benefits from the human consumable nutrients that dairy cows provide.

The scenario where cows were retired – where cows lived out the remainder of their lives in pastures or free-range – resulted in a 12 percent reduction in agricultural emissions and all 39 nutrients considered declined.

The depopulation scenario – where cows are killed off – resulted in a 7 percent reduction in agricultural emissions. Thirty of 39 nutrients increased for the depopulation scenario, though several essential nutrients declined.

A major factor in all of the scenarios is the use of the land that has to be managed after the removal of the cows.

Full article here.

Source: Virginia Tech news release

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    Ever seen a cow in a greenhouse?

  2. JB says:

    Verily.
    Such a misnomer for CO2.
    Flora fuel closer to the fact.
    And such a huge ROI with that minuscule fuel.

  3. Gamecock says:

    ‘This same industry also contributes approximately 1.58 percent of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions.’

    False precision fallacy. To two decimal places (!), no less.

    The purpose is to imply that they actually know what they are talking about.

    “Trust US, we know what we are doing!”

    Well, no, you show you actually don’t.

  4. tom0mason says:

    Why all this paranoia about grazing animals’ flatulence?
    400 years ago and before, the planet was a very different place! Back then there were natural population of hundreds of millions (probably many billions) of grazing animals that roamed free across most Africa, Asia, and North America. A time before Europeans invaded these lands and found the ‘sport’ of hunting these animals to near extinction very satisfying.
    The Americas had huge herds of bison, buffalo, African lands that had vast seasonal migrations of many millions of wildebeest, zebra, gazelle and many other antelope species. Many millions of elephants*, hippos, along with very large numbers of rhinos, and giraffes. Add to that the truly vast acreages of swamp lands that emits methane. Swamp areas that has also been drained over the last 400 year.

    *https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/history-ivory-trade/ says “…Africa’s elephant population — from 26 million elephants in 1800 to fewer than one million today.”
    Also see https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1935973052/the-world-as-it-once-was with a plea for funding.

    400 years ago – and before then – all these sources of methane and yet the Little Ice Age still came.

  5. Phoenix44 says:

    Yes, where exactly will we get our calcium from?

    And what will all that land be used for? Beans? A vegetarian diet produces lots more gas from humans than a meat does – I would bet £10 none of the “research” has factored that in.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Prince Charles on another science-free climate rant. Trying to tie COVID to climate superstition this time…

    Charles warns we face more pandemics unless climate change halted
    10 hours ago

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/charles-warns-we-face-more-pandemics-unless-climate-change-halted-b837660.html

  7. Chaswarnertoo says:

    Prince Charles is an entitled, thick, ignorant prat.

  8. jeremyp99 says:

    As Ben Pile pointed out, huge herds of ruminants have wandered the planet since time immemorial….
    Bisons, anyone?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s