Earth & Environment - Posted by Sylvia Wright-UC Davis on Monday, December 14, 2009 17:29 - 7 Comments 
(5 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
(5 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5) Loading ...Don’t blame cows for climate change
Frank Mitloehner, air quality specialist with animal science at UC Davis, measures the gases produced by livestock. Mitloehner says leading authorities agree that, in the U.S., raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, while transportation creates an estimated 26 percent. “In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices, to make more food with less greenhouse gas production.”
UC DAVIS (US)—Consuming less meat and dairy products will not help stop climate change, says Frank Mitloehner, despite claims by sources ranging from the United Nations to music star Paul McCartney.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
Last week, on the eve of the international climate summit in Copenhagen, McCartney and the chair of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change launched a European campaign called “Less Meat = Less Heat.”
Mitloehner, associate professor and air quality specialist at UC Davis, says McCartney and others, such as the promoters of “Meatless Monday,” seem to be well-intentioned but not well-schooled in the complex relationships among human activities, animal digestion, food production, and atmospheric chemistry.
“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 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). This is a higher share than transport.”
The statements are not accurate, and 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 says leading authorities agree that, in the U.S., raising cattle and pigs for food accounts for about 3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, while transportation creates an estimated 26 percent.
“In developing countries, we should adopt more efficient, Western-style farming practices, to make more food with less greenhouse gas production,” Mitloehner continues.
“The developed world’s efforts should focus not on reducing meat and milk consumption,” says Mitloehner, “but rather on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries, where growing populations need more nutritious food.”
Mitloehner says he 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 says.
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.
The study was funded by California Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, and Beef Checkoff Program. Since 2002, Mitloehner has received $5 million in research funding, with 5 percent of the total from agricultural commodities groups, such as beef producers.
UC Davis news: www.news.ucdavis.edu/
Please wait
7 Comments
If UC Davis would misrepresent the Frank Mitloehner as an air quality specialist – when in fact he is a livestock promotion “expert” — that’s one thing, but it’s disappointing to see Futurity repeat this misinformation.
In any event, Paul McCartney and others have talked about the quick, inexpensive carbon reduction available from meat consumption globally. Contrary to what Frank Mitloehner implies, they have not said anything about livestock-raising in the U.S.
As for the estimate in “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” that was made in 2006 – and was updated in November 2009 by the Worldwatch Institute, which showed that at least 51% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to the life cycle and supply chain of livestock products. Of course this is much higher than the 3% U.S. figure claimed by Frank Mitloehner, yet has gone unreported by Futurity. The Worldwatch estimate is available at http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294.
Joy
Futurity is a great site, but let’s not confuse it with science reporting. This website aggregates press releases from major research universities. A press release, or promotional story, is a very different thing from critical reporting. This is an awesome place to learn about new research, but a very bad place to come to assess it.
Thanks for the additional information, Worldwatch.
Chris Gregory
Hmm. Worldwatcher questions Frank Mitloehner’s credentials, then asks us to accept Paul McCartney’s authority on the matter?
I think the problem is the lack of any sort of review or analysis of any of the material presented on Futurity, which is frankly all over the place in terms of quality.
The other problem, of course, is that you have to pay to read the actual paper. It looks sound to me, from what I can see…and with Worldwatch giving it out for free, who are you going to believe?
I just have to say that it’s sad when science gets hijacked by ideologues and vested interests. I thought those days were meant to be over…
less meat- less heat
People from poor country cut down forests, because people from rich countries like to eat stake. They cut down forests to raise animals, not to grow crops.
JC
It takes 10 kg of animal feed to produce 1 kg of beef, and 5 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of pork!! I don’t see how producing more meat can save countries that are starving. It’s just way too costly to produce meat for consumption. A more efficient meat production will just make starvation worse in the poor countries. Poor countries are already struggling financially, and now they need more resources to produce just 1kg of meat. Instead of feeding 3 people with 1kg of pork, why not give 5kg of grain to save 10 people?
And meat is one of the major causes of cardiovascular disease in modern countries!! If we are feeding the poor countries with more meat, how will that help them?? Throwing them more meat is just a bad start to relieve starvation in terms of health and cost-effectiveness. I just don’t see how an increasing meat production will relieve starvation.
Vickie
This guy is not even an air quality specialist at UC Davis. He specializes in agricultural and animal science!!
B.S.: Animal Science, University of Goettingen, Germany
M.S.: Agricultural Engineering and Animal Science (Diplom Agrar Ingenieur, Dipl. agr. ing.), University of Leipzig, Germany, 1996
Ph.D.: Animal Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 2000.
The role of cows in the production of CO2 has been considered for at least the last 50 years. For many years a favorite joke concerned destruction of the human race from bovine flatus. This entire idea of the need for reduction of cattle overlooks the fact that if people in poorer countries are supplied with protein they have less need to cut down forests to grow crops. That becomes a win-win situation. The problem is getting the protein to the people. That is where transportation comes in. The entire situation should be looked at from that perspective.