News Update
Dec. 10, 2009

Don’t Blame Cows for Climate Change

Despite oft-repeated claims by sources ranging from the United Nations (U.N.) to music star Paul McCartney, it is simply not true that consuming less meat and dairy products will help stop climate change, says a University of California–Davis (UC Davis) authority on farming and greenhouse gases.

UC Davis Associate Professor and Air Quality Specialist Frank Mitloehner says that McCartney and the chair of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignored science last week when they launched a European campaign called “Less Meat = Less Heat.” The launch came on the eve of a major international climate summit, which runs today through Dec. 18 in Copenhagen.

McCartney and others, such as the promoters of “meatless Mondays,” seem to be well-intentioned but not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production and atmospheric chemistry, Mitloehner says.

“Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat,” Mitloehner says. “Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries.”

Mitloehner traces much of the public confusion over meat and milk’s role in climate change to two sentences in a 2006 United Nations report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” Printed only in the report’s executive summary and nowhere in the body of the report, the sentences read: “The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.”

These statements are not accurate, yet their wide distribution through news media have put us on the wrong path toward solutions, Mitloehner says.

“We certainly can reduce our greenhouse-gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk.

“Rather, in developed countries, we should focus on cutting our use of oil and coal for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels.”

Mitloehner said leading authorities agree that, in the U.S., raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions, while transportation creates an estimated 26%.

“In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices, to make more food with less greenhouse gas production,” Mitloehner continued. In this he agrees with the conclusion of “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which calls for “replacing current suboptimal production with advanced production methods — at every step from feed production, through livestock production and processing, to distribution and marketing.”

“The developed world’s efforts should focus not on reducing meat and milk consumption,” said Mitloehner, “but rather on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries, where growing populations need more nutritious food.”

Mitloehner particularly objects to the U.N.’s statement that livestock account for more greenhouse gases than transportation, when there is no generally accepted global breakdown of gas production by industrial sector.

He notes that “Livestock’s Long Shadow” produced its numbers for the livestock sector by adding up emissions from farm to table, including the gases produced by growing animal feed; animals’ digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods. But its transportation analysis did not similarly add up emissions from well to wheel; instead, it considered only emissions from fossil fuels burned while driving.

“This lopsided ‘analysis’ is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue,” Mitloehner said.

Most of Mitloehner’s analysis is presented in a recent study titled “Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contributions to Climate Change,” published in October in the peer-reviewed journal Advances in Agronomy. Co-authors of the paper are UC Davis researchers Maurice Piteskey and Kimberly Stackhouse.

“Clearing the Air” is a synthesis of research by the UC Davis authors and many other institutions, including the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), California EPA and the California Air Resources Board. Writing the synthesis was supported by a $26,000 research grant from the Beef Checkoff Program, which funds research and other activities, including promotion and consumer education, through fees on beef producers in the United States.

Since 2002, Mitloehner has received $5 million in research funding, with 5% of the total from agricultural commodities groups, such as beef producers.

—Release provided by UC Davis.

Kansas Hay and Grazing Conference Set for Jan. 13 in Manhattan

The 2010 Kansas Hay and Grazing Conference is scheduled for Jan. 13 at the Kansas Farm Bureau building in Manhattan.

The conference, sponsored by Kansas State University (K-State) Research and Extension and the Kansas Forage and Grassland Council (KFGC), will begin with registration at 8:30 a.m. and the program starting at 9:30 a.m.

David Davis of the University of Missouri–Columbia will be the keynote speaker, said Gary Kilgore, the event coordinator. The day also will feature breakout sessions on a range of topics, educational displays and commercial exhibitors.

“This is a public conference for anyone interested in livestock grazing, hay production and utilization or the buying and selling of Kansas grass and hay products,” Kilgore said.

Breakout session topics will include:

• Weed Control in Cool Season and Native Grass Pastures;
  
• Biomass Research in Kansas;
  
• Weed Management in New and Established Alfalfa Fields;
  
• Control of Insects in Alfalfa;
  
• Managing Native Rangeland for Yearling Stocker Cattle;
  
• Experiences with Year-Round Grazing;
  
• Establishing Different Legumes in Grass;
  
• An Alfalfa Variety Update; and
  
• Using a Computer Program to Determine Fertilizer Selection and Cost for Grass Fertilization.

The registration fee of $45 will include membership in the Kansas Forage and Grassland Council; conference lunch and breaks; conference proceedings; and a 2010 KFGC Discount Coupon Book.

More information and registration forms are available by calling 620-431-1530 or kwalters@ksu.edu. Checks should be made payable to KFGC and mailed to Gary Kilgore at 308 W. 14th St., Chanute, Kan. 66720.

— Release provided by K-State Research and Extension.

Delayed Harvest Has Producers Scrambling to Apply Manure

The wet Midwestern fall and delayed harvest has left many producers scrambling to apply manure and empty manure storage facilities before the ground freezes.

“The best time to apply postharvest manure is after the soil temperature cools down, and ideally when soils are dry,” said Tamilee Nennich, Purdue Extension dairy management specialist. “Once we start having freezing soils and snow cover, application of manure needs to stop because of the greater potential for manure run-off. During this time it can be especially risky.”

Even before soils freeze, there are still risks with fall manure application — especially when there is excessive soil moisture.

“The biggest concern about applying manure in the fall is wet soils,” Nennich said. “We want to make sure that manure, and especially the nutrients in the manure, stay in the soil.”

Because this fall has been so wet, Nennich said field selection is key when producers look to apply manure.

“It’s made it really challenging for producers to get out in the fields and to actually find dry enough fields and the time to be able to apply the manure,” she said. “Producers should apply manure in the fields that are the driest and have the best drainage. They need to make sure not to apply manure to fields with an abundance of wet spots or where runoff is more prevalent.”

Another factor producers can look at is the nutrient value of the soil in each field. It’s better to apply manure where soil nutrient levels, especially phosphorus, are lower.

For farmers with fields that are not suitable for manure application right now, one option to consider is whether neighbors might have fields better suited for application.

“Manure is expensive to haul and it’s best to keep it close to home, but farmers need to take a look at their fields,” Nennich said. “Sometimes it is better to haul it to a field that is farther away, or, in some cases, it might be a good idea to talk to neighbors. Maybe some of their fields would actually be better for manure application.”

Once fields are selected, producers need to keep in mind the precautions they can take to keep nutrients in the soil.

“A lot of producers inject manure,” Nennich said. “That’s a great way to make sure the nutrients stay in the soil. If manure is spread on the soil surface, it provides a lot more opportunity for nutrients to run off. So incorporating manure instead of leaving it on the surface is very advantageous.

“Producers also need to pay attention to buffer areas, and if there are any sensitive areas, like low spots, avoid them. If it’s possible, leave even greater buffer distances, especially in areas with down slopes, to try to prevent run off.”

Nennich also suggests that farmers consider capping tile drains so nutrients don’t leach out through the soil and potentially end up in surface water.

Even when field selection and the necessary precautions are kept in mind, the time crunch to empty manure storage facilities is presenting producers with concerns.

“It becomes a challenge because manure storage facilities do need to be empty going into winter because oftentimes six months of storage is needed before manure storage facilities can be emptied in the spring,” Nennich said. “If we have a wet spring it can also be challenging to get into fields.”

For farmers who have done all they can but still face serious storage issues, there are few options available.

“The reality is that it’s a tough situation because there’s not a lot that can be done about it,” Nennich said. “Manure has to be contained one way or another. So, it either needs to be applied correctly or contained in a manure storage facility. Having a spill is extremely serious, so we need to make sure we prevent that from happening.”

One agency that can help farmers is the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).

“I would encourage producers to contact IDEM in difficult situations,” Nennich said. “They have an agriculture liaison who will be more than happy to work with producers to discuss various options. It’s definitely better to work with them to make sure they are aware of your situation and know that you’re doing the best you can to manage your manure properly.”

— Release provided by Purdue Extension.

 — Compiled by Mathew Elliott, assistant editor, Angus Productions Inc.