Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]


Research Suggests Cattle Raising May Reduce Emissions


4 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that livestock production causes 11.1 of global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, recommending people eat less meat to fight climate change.

Yet recent research suggests that under some climatic conditions or ecosystems, at least, cattle raising may actually result in lower emissions.

Alltech and Archbold examined the emissions from cattle raising in wetlands and ground that is regularly water laden. They found that although cattle accounted for 19 percent to 30 percent of emissions, the vast majority of the methane produced there was from the soil itself and the decomposing plant and animal life. As a result, they found, removing the cows actually produced a net increase in methane emissions.

Vaughn Holder, Ph.D., research project manager for beef nutrition at Alltech, who with Betsey Boughton, Ph.D., director of agroecology at Archbold, studied the impacts that cattle production has on the ecosystem on a wetlands pasture at Buck Island Ranch, about 150 miles northwest of Miami, Florida, notes that the production of agricultural emissions is more complex than simply ruminant eats plants = more methane emissions.

“There is a far more complex process in agriculture than it is in fossil fuel systems,” Holder told Just the News, which wrote:

Cattle are part of a carbon cycle. So if you just model the emissions coming from the animal, you’re missing the rest of the ecosystem, Holder said, which is absorbing carbon as a result of the animal being on the land.

When cattle graze on land, the plants prioritize root growth over the plant matter above the surface. The deeper the roots, the more plants sequester carbon in the soil through the photosynthesis process.

Grazing also removes grasses from a pasture, which reduces the dead plant matter that falls to the soil and decomposes, which also produces greenhouse gasses.

At the Buck Island Ranch, Boughton and her team measured the amount of greenhouse gases emitted on a pasture that had no grazing and compared it to pasture that had grazing. The data suggested grazing livestock were a net carbon sink compared to no grazing.

Of course, what’s true of a wetland’s ecosystem may not translate into more arid lands were cattle are often grazed, so more research is needed in order to know how cattle impact emissions in other environments.

However, as Holder and Boughton point out, quite aside from reducing emissions from wetlands, cattle and other livestock also consume a lot of plants humans can’t eat, turning them into them into edible proteins humans can consume, increasing global food security while reducing the emissions from the decomposition of the plants when they otherwise naturally die. In addition, livestock also consume a lot of food byproducts that humans either can’t or prefer not to eat, like orange pulp used in orange juice production. Although such byproducts can be used in composting, Holder notes, “composting increases emissions five times more than feeding it to dairy cows and byproducts disposed of in landfills produced 50 times more emissions than if it is fed to dairy cows.”

The research suggests that when accounting for livestock emissions, one should do an all-things- considered comparison, accounting for not just the emissions from cattle and sheep, but also from the material they consume that otherwise would have produced emissions by other means.

Sources: Just the News;  Understanding the Carbon Cycle on a Cattle Ranch

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author


The Netherlands Reverses Host of Climate Policies

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

Agriculture-focused polices the new government is reversing include the previous government’s forced buyout and retirement of farms to cut fertilizer use and associated nitrogen emissions

The Netherlands recently elected a new right-of-center government which is downplaying climate alarm and European Union (EU)-driven climate policies that harm the country’s residents and agricultural producers.

“Geert Wilders, a prominent figure in Dutch politics, has led a coalition that marks a decisive shift in the Netherlands’ approach to climate policy. Wilders, often dubbed the “Dutch Trump,” formed a new government that includes the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB),” writes Charles Rotter at Watts Up With That. Rotter quotes a report in The Telegraph on the political right’s rise in the Netherlands and what it means for climate policy:

The Netherlands will tear up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps as part of a war on net zero by Geert Wilders and the Dutch farmers’ party. Six months after his shock election victory, Mr. Wilders this week struck an agreement to usher in a Right-wing coalition government of four parties. “We are writing history,” he said as he announced the program for the new government.

Among the EU-endorsed climate policies Wilders’ coalition government is rescinding is the heat pump mandate, which would have forced homeowners to switch to expensive, inefficient hybrid heat pumps  from traditional air conditioning and heating systems.

The EU had established a goal of installing a minimum of 10 million new heat pumps by 2027 as part of its 2050 net-zero ambition, a plan the previous Dutch government had endorsed and imposed. As The Telegraph reported, the Dutch government’s heat pump mandate was intended to drive “down Dutch household use of natural gas for heating, which is the largest source of its gas consumption, equivalent to about 30 percent in total.”

Commending the new coalition government’s reversal, Caroline van der Plas, leader of the BBB,  cheerfully said, “Thanks to BBB’s efforts, the mandatory heat pump will be abolished.”

Agriculture-focused polices the new government is reversing include the previous government’s forced buyout and retirement of farms to cut fertilizer use and associated nitrogen emissions. In its place, the new government will establish a series of voluntary incentives to reduce emissions and offer interested farmers voluntary buyouts to end production.

Wilders government is also set to end subsidies for electric vehicles by 2025, which, as Rotter notes, is “a departure from the EU’s blanket approach to climate policy. These subsidies have been criticized for benefiting the wealthy who can afford electric vehicles while doing little to address broader environmental issues.”

Continue Reading


WEF report calls on governments to push fake meat products to meet Paris Climate goals

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

The World Economic Forum has urged governments to join in a coordinated effort with corporations to drive consumer behavior change toward lab-grown meats and ‘alternative protein’ sources to ‘decarbonize the global economy.’

The unelected globalists at the World Economic Forum (WEF) call on governments to promote fake meat and other alternative proteins in a coordinated effort to drive “consumer behavior change.”

In a white paper entitled “Creating a Vibrant Food Innovation Ecosystem: How Israel Is Advancing Alternative Proteins Across Sectors,” the authors claim that the push towards alternative proteins requires a global effort of governments and corporations working together to manipulate human behaviour:

Government leadership is needed to develop and promote alternative proteins and address one of the biggest global challenges of this era.

READ: UN chief compares humans who contribute to ‘climate change’ to meteor that allegedly wiped out dinosaurs

According to the report, achieving universally accessible protein will require multiple transition pathways:

  1. Accelerating protein diversification.
  2. Advancing sustainable production systems.
  3. Driving consumer behavior change.

What’s the reason behind the push to drive consumer behavior change towards fake meat and other alternative proteins?

The science is clear: it will be impossible for governments and others, including farmers, the private sector and consumers, to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement and decarbonize the global economy without investing in sustainable protein diversification pathways and the overall food system.

“Nations around the world are becoming aware of the benefits of prioritizing alternative proteins to meet their climate, biodiversity, food security and public health goals,” the report claims.

However, due to the “high-tech nature” of alternative proteins and their “high capital expenditures (CAPEX) requirement and longer return on investment timelines,” the authors say they “may pose investment challenges for some parts of the private sector.”

This is where the unelected globalists want governments to step in to incentivize, coerce, modify, or otherwise manipulate human behavior, “within current frameworks,” like the ones that gave us COVID lockdowns and vaccine passports.

“Within current frameworks, governments can create clear, supportive, agile and efficient regulatory processes to ensure safe and transparent pathways that instill confidence in consumers and industry players alike, fostering a robust alternative protein market in a shift towards food systems that are more sustainable, secure and just,” the authors claim.

On the flipside, Italy has already banned lab-grown meat, and Wired reports that “States are lining up to outlaw lab-grown meat,” with legislation proposed in Florida, Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Governments need to consider investing in open-access research and creating private sector incentives to realize the full economic and societal benefits of plant-based and cultivated meat and make these options accessible to all.

Notably absent from the latest WEF report is any mention of the use of insects as an alternative protein, which is something the unelected globalists have been pushing for years.

The current report says that alternative proteins consist of plant-based meat, cultivated meat, and fermented products.

However, the WEF’s White Paper on Alternative Proteins published in January 2019 states that alternative proteins involve “purely plant‑based alternatives, products based on insects and other novel protein sources, and the application of cutting‑edge biotechnology to develop cultured meat [emphasis added].”

Alternative proteins are game-changing agricultural innovations that, with proper levels of support, can help aid planetary and public health.

The official narrative to push fake food on the populace is that it will help tackle challenges in climate change, food security, and planetary health.

The latest report states that “[in] light of the escalating challenges posed by climate change and the need to ensure food security, nations are called on to undertake a collective effort to elevate alternative proteins as a solution.”

But what the alternative protein agenda is really about is destroying independent farmers, taking their land, and controlling what people can eat.

Control the food, control the people.

The same can be said of money and energy, and the unelected globalists are definitely trying to control them all through individual carbon footprint trackerscentral bank digital currencies, and alternative proteins:

Countries that strategically adapt to evolving global food systems and diversify their food value chains stand to benefit from the positive impacts of integrating alternative proteins into their national policies.


At the same time, the WEF report says that a potential shift to alternative proteins would actually help farmers:

There is a growing acknowledgement that, despite the industry being in its infancy, alternative proteins – meat made from plants, cultivated from animal cells or fermentation-derived meat – have transformative potential, particularly for farmers, who can benefit from and lead the transition towards a thriving alt-protein economy.

Did they really just say that meat is made from plants?

And how is that farmers can possibly benefit from the production of fake food grown in labs?

According to the authors, “Projections indicate a substantial surplus of agricultural side streams, particularly from corn, soy, wheat, sugarcane, barley, rice, canola and tomatoes. Using these for alternative protein production represents a significant opportunity to enhance sustainability and circularity within the food supply chain, optimizing resource use and creating a more resilient agricultural sector.”

In other words, farmers will be coerced, incentivized, or otherwise manipulated into growing only what they are told to grow, so that their crops can be used to produce fake food.

At the same time, “Plant-based and cultivated meat require a small fraction of the land and cause far fewer emissions than industrial animal farming. Freed-up land can be repurposed for biodiversity preservation, reforestation and more ecologically friendly and regenerative methods of animal farming.”

READ: Italy’s parliament bans artificial foods derived from animal ‘cells’

The idea here is to shrink the amount of land needed for farming real food in order to make way for fake food that can be synthetically engineered with “far fewer emissions.”

Climate change policies have morphed into public and planetary health policies, and the unelected globalist solutions are always the same: merge corporation and state to monitor, manipulate, and control human behavior.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading