The Agricultural Effect on Global Warming

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Media_Truth, Aug 24, 2024.

  1. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Link at end of post, bolded is quoted from source.

    Current agricultural methods result in 10% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S
    . When you look around at all the cars and trucks on the road, and all the homes in the US being heated, it makes you realize how incredibly high this number is.

    Animal excrement produces methane gas and Nitrous Oxide. Methane and Nitrous are much more potent greenhouse gases than CO2. One ton of methane is equivalent to between 27 and 30 tons of carbon dioxide in warming potential, and 1 ton of nitrous oxide is equivalent to 273 tons of carbon dioxide in warming potential

    The second largest contributor is nitrous oxide, which results mostly from agricultural fertilizer application to soils and from manure management.

    There is no question that improvements of agricultural methods can reduce the agricultural greenhouse gas contribution. The Inflation Reduction Act attempted to address this issue. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) increased funding dedicated to greenhouse gas mitigation in those programs by $19.5 billion over five years. Decisions about provisions in the 2023 reauthorization of the Farm Bill to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, including those in Title II, will have significant implications for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the sector.
    Any benefits from this effort will more than likely be realized long term.

    The Agricultural debate is laden with various opinions from “inevitable” to “I have the magic solution”. .

    Some ranchers actually argue that a feedlot operation can be more beneficial at reducing greenhouse gases, because it easier to collect the manure daily, and compost it, such that most of the methane and nitrous oxide doesn’t enter the atmosphere. There are also anaerobic digesters which can trap and collect the gases. Research of these methods is ongoing at prestigious Ag Universities like CSU. Others believe that free-range cattle are better, where some of the gases end up in the atmosphere and some is returned to the soil. And some of these studies are only directed at cows. There is also a huge pork industry. You would think that, with the history of raising livestock in the US, we would understand all of this better. But this is largely considered cutting-edge research.

    https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-emissions-101
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2024
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,157
    Likes Received:
    22,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A solution in search of a problem.
     
    AFM, Sunsettommy and Hotdogr like this.
  3. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess they should just close Ag Universities like CSU?
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,157
    Likes Received:
    22,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all. The gases produced by agriculture are not a problem.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  5. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,569
    Likes Received:
    5,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed, increased CO2, and warming temperatures are GOOD for agriculture. And that is a mitigating factor when evaluating the effect of climate change on humanity. Perhaps @557, as a large scale commercial farmer, might lend some of his insight to this topic.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2024
    AFM, 557, Sunsettommy and 1 other person like this.
  6. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. Agriculture has been warming the planet for millennia.

    Likely kept us out of a more severe ice age.

    https://news.virginia.edu/content/mounting-evidence-suggests-early-agriculture-staved-global-cooling#:~:text=A new analysis of ice,warmer climate we experience today.

    Imagine living in an ice age! Yuck.

    There are serious problems with sustainability of current global agriculture. But emissions are far down the list of problems. And we have the solutions. There just isn’t any interest in those solutions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2024
    AFM, Jack Hays and Hotdogr like this.
  7. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Global and US ag have serious environmental problems that need to be addressed. Greenhouse gasses are not the primary concern. CO2 is obviously net beneficial to ag and society at large. Soil quality and sustainability are problems. Much of the planet is still using slash and burn type practices where “new” land is cleared, crops are grown until the stored nutrients and organic matter is gone from the soil, and the process is repeated.

    The US avoids this problem by utilizing the Haber-Bosch process of turning fossil fuels into nitrogen fertilizers. Thus, new land isn’t required after stored nutrients are depleted, we just add commercial fertilizers. The problem is soil organic matter never increases back to “normal” unless land is intentionally managed to achieve this. I posted about the potential our carbon depleted soils have to sequester carbon and become more productive and more sustainable in another thread. I’ll repeat that here as an example of intentional land use change that solves problems like erosion, excessive nitrogen fertilizer use (that creates NOx pollution), flooding etc. while also sequestering large quantities of atmospheric CO2 that climate zealots want to sequester.

    Here is the “formal” evidence again that land use changes to how we grow plants can significantly impact carbon sequestration.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00333-1#:~:text=Terrestrial vegetation sequesters 112–169,under different land management practices

    Now a bit on how it actually works in practice. On my way home tonight I stopped and took a picture of one example on my farm. Here is a land use change that sequesters a lot of carbon. Twenty years ago this field was gravity irrigated, which requires some tillage that leads to faster turnover of soil carbon (more loss to the atmosphere). Now it’s under center pivot irrigation that allows complete no-till practices.

    Twenty years ago, this field grew only corn and soybeans. So there was only active plant growth from typically May to the middle of September. Now, as soon as corn is chopped for silage or soybeans are harvested, the field is planted to rye. The rye usually grows until sometime in November, and some years with mild winters into December. And in the spring its actively growing by March and sometimes late February.

    The rye is grazed for about 5-6 weeks in the spring, and then when the cows go to summer pasture, corn and soybeans are planted directly into whatever rye remains. So now instead of active plant growth for only 5 months a year, there is active growth at least 8 months of the year. And there are live roots to foster soil microbe activity all year whenever soils are warm enough for biological activity. Here is what it looks like tonight (above ground).

    upload_2024-8-24_8-37-22.jpeg


    You can see the soil is completely covered in last spring’s rye straw. There is a growing corn crop. And there is even volunteer rye starting to grow under the corn from seed produced last spring after the grazing season ended. If we looked underground in the soil we could find old roots from last spring’s rye, roots of the growing corn, and roots of the volunteer rye.

    It’s been claimed above these practices are not economically viable. Every part of this new system either benefits me financially directly or indirectly. The pivot system was a good investment because it saves on electricity because it’s more efficient at irrigation. It stops carbon loss from tillage. It saves a lot of labor. It increases yields.

    The inclusion of rye and a grazing season adds massive amounts of carbon to the soil. It decreases young calf health problems, specifically gastrointestinal infections. The deep, robust roots of rye break up soil compaction and increase water infiltration rates, making irrigation more efficient and allowing me to benefit more from precipitation events as runoff is greatly reduced. It replaces feed in the form of baled hay and corn silage I would otherwise have to feed my cows during the rye grazing season. It reduces nutrient loss from rain events and erosion from wind or precipitation events. That’s just a partial list, but since carbon sequestration is the main topic I’ll desist. :) This system sequesters carbon where 20 years ago this soil was a net emitter of carbon many years.

    These types of practices are not difficult. They generally save labor, fuel, water, time, etc. and are net financially beneficial to the operator. It just requires a new way of thinking about land use and agronomic practices.

    Here is the rye last spring as we were moving cattle off the field at the end of the rye grazing season. I’m 5’10” and could barely see over the top of it.

    upload_2024-8-24_8-37-48.jpeg


    Practices that sequester carbon are simple, easy, net profitable in most cases (long term even if not short term), and can produce immediate environmental benefits beyond just carbon sequestration. I’ll reiterate, it’s a shame the environmentalist of today has no interest in solutions.

    That’s just one example of things those of us who are serious about solving REAL problems do. The OP talks a lot about NOx. I use nitrogen stabilizers on fertilizer that prevent leaching of nitrogen below the root zone as well as eliminate the vast majority of denitrification that produces NOx. Many US producers still prefer to over-fertilize instead of pay to protect a lesser quantity of applied fertilizer. As soils with higher organic matter are able to be productive with less applied nitrogen, practices like I described above also help eliminate NOx emissions. For example, a neighbor tilling his ground and not utilizing cover crops will need to apply 1.3 lbs of nitrogen per desired bushel of corn yield. I can achieve the same yield with 0.9 lbs applied fertilizer because my soils have higher carbon content. Also, crop rotations utilizing legumes that fix atmospheric nitrogen eliminate applied commercial nitrogen applications entirely for their growth season as well as add 40-70 lbs of carryover nitrogen for next year’s crop (this is soybeans, alfalfa leaves considerably more nitrogen that is available for multiple following seasons).

    Methane is an odd concern if you consider things like the US having had more large ruminants before European settlement than we have today. Large herbivores are actually one of nature’s most efficient soil carbon sequestration and management tools. But I don’t feel up to detailing that here.

    We try to maintain insect populations that mitigate methane emissions here. Mainly dung beetles in pastures and to a lesser degree, flies. Many people use feed-through insecticides that kill fly larvae in manure. This also harms dung beetles. I prefer to let nature use the processes it developed over eons and deal with the negative effects of flies in ways less damaging to benefits of insects.

    Around home with the dairy herd and when beef cows are home for calving, we run kune kune pigs with them to help limit methane production by quickly breaking up and drying cow pies. That’s essentially how dung beetles lesson methane production.

    There are so many little things that nature has developed we can leverage to solve problems or perceived problems. There just isn’t any interest in using them. It’s a shame.

    Hope that was what you were looking for. :)
     
    Jack Hays and Hotdogr like this.
  8. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,569
    Likes Received:
    5,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for your contributions here, you are such a wealth of real-world information. It's so difficult to arrive at truth, on any topic, these days.

    Now, if you can just tell me how to keep those darn corn worms from ruining my sweet corn.... :) I fed it all to my cows this year, not one ear salvageable.
     
    Jack Hays and 557 like this.
  9. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for your kind words.

    The sweet corn thing is tough. I haven’t planted any for a couple years. Raccoons give me the most trouble.

    I’ve been planting GMO sweet corn with Bt traits to help with the worms. Bt is a natural insecticide first found in bacteria. For a long time it was sprayed as a natural insecticide until we figured out how to engineer corn to produce the compound itself.

    This stuff doesn’t keep all worms out but it certainly helps. It’s roundup-ready as well if that matters to you. You may be able to get Bt without RR but not sure. They are always bundled in commodity corn genetics. I haven’t looked at sweet corn seed for 3 years at least. Here is what I planted last. The company has a lot of options I know. Check it out.



    IMG_3900.jpeg

    Otherwise you probably have to use an insecticide. You might research what organic or permaculture type growers are doing. There may be other non gmo and insecticide options.

    My seed dealer gave me some sweet corn the other day. I plan to eat it later today. It’s from this company. I guess I’ll see how many worms there are later today. :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2024
    Jack Hays and Hotdogr like this.
  10. Shutcie

    Shutcie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2021
    Messages:
    5,149
    Likes Received:
    4,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One.
    Just one.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  11. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No worms in the 6 ears we shucked and ate today.

    I think insect pressure was pretty bad in some areas. My father in law lives over in eastern Nebraska and he had bad worms in his sweet corn.
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  12. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agricultural methane and nitrous oxide have been around, but not with all the CO2 also being pumped into the environment. In addition, that was at times when there weren’t 8.2 Billion people, many raising animals. As I stated - look around - all those cars and trucks, and all those homes being heated, and yet Agriculture accounts for 10% of the warming. That’s incredible!

    I don’t doubt that you may have some “partial” solutions, and I applaud free- grazing techniques, and grassland farming (or rye) but a “cow patty” is a “cow patty”.
     
  13. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it’s definitely incredible we still use farming methods developed in the 1850s to the 1940s. Some folks go so far as to say Haber’s hand in availability of abundant nitrogen fertilizer was more “evil” than his hand in development of Zyklon-B used to gas Jews.

    I guess 10% does sound like a lot and it is. But food is kind of important if you think about it. Excepting water (and oxygen) it’s the most essential thing you need.

    Will finish this up shortly…
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2024
    AFM, Pieces of Malarkey and Jack Hays like this.
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To continue. If we look at other contributors to emissions we see heating of spaces, water and food also contributes over 10% to total US emissions. Globally around 40% of emissions come from heating. And this is in a world claimed to be too hot.

    That’s just for perspective I guess.

    Also for perspective, most people don’t understand agriculture isn’t just about food. Agriculture produces 15.6 billion gallons of ethanol which is about 9% of total gasoline usage in the US. Agricultural provides you with products you don’t eat or put in your gas tank. Here are a few examples of products from ag or made from (in whole or part) ag products.

    A few examples include bed sheets, sports equipment (ball gloves, balls, etc.), candles, paint, upholstery, pillows, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and tissues (heart valves), biodegradable plastics, hand soap, home mold growth prevention products, batteries including Li-ion, wax paper, perfume, toothpaste, paving bricks, solvents, crayons, shoes, tires, dust suppression compounds for gravel roads, building insulation, lotions, antifreeze, paper, and hundreds more.

    Doesn’t sound like too bad of a deal when you consider the same amount of emissions come from heating and still more people die from cold than heat as a result. Seems like you are getting more for your emissions with agriculture.

    That said, yes, we can and should address agricultural problems with sustainability. While being thankful it saved us from entering a more severe ice age of course. :)


    No, cow patties are not cow patties. We can significantly reduce emissions from them in many ways. Methane can only be produced anaerobically so anything we do to quickly break up and dry the manure decreases methane production. This is why the EPA reports this:

    Dung beetles are one species that accomplish this.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18140#:~:text=in these areas.-,Results,from pats without dung beetles.

    To be clear, single species of large tunnelers in humid environments can be ineffective at reducing total emissions. Not all dung beetles are equal and drying can’t occur equally in various environments.

    Anything that quickly changes the state of cow manure from viscous liquid that favors anaerobic fermentation to a dry state that doesn’t allow for anaerobic breakdown reduces methane production. In the pasture that can be dung beetles, wild fowl (turkeys, prairie chickens), and even box turtles.


    There is no single solution to methane or CO2 from agriculture. For example, methane is addressed on my farm in numerous ways, not just quick drying of cow pats. I use rotational grazing that decreases methane production in the rumen by making sure forage is more digestible (more simple carbs and less complex carbs like cellulose). It’s always a combination of tools nature provides that end up making a difference.


    The bottom line is we have adopted agricultural practices that work against the natural systems. We destroy species like dung beetles and native fowl. We do not mimic natural grazing systems native animals and plants evolved to complement. We destroyed soils with tillage and reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. All we have to do to make a difference is stop working against nature and start leveraging the tools it provided us eons ago.

    Carbon belongs in the soil, growing plants, and animal life. We don’t have to leave it in the atmosphere.

    Sorry for the two part reply. I’m out in the weather actually DOING this **** and sometimes I can’t multitask! :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2024
    Jack Hays and Pieces of Malarkey like this.
  15. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am certainly not going to refute “dung beetles”. The article I referenced also poses practices that would lead to emissions reduction (below). The point is that, just as there is a lot of focus on CO2 reduction strategies, there needs to be a lot of attention given to Methane and Nitrous reduction strategies.
    • Carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by planting additional crops outside of the primary growing season (known as cover cropping). Using cultivation methods that cause less disturbance to soil also can reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
    • Nitrous oxide formation can be limited by reducing the amount of fertilizer applied and avoiding applications when conditions are more favorable to nitrous oxide formation.
    • Methane emissions from manure can be reduced through the adoption of manure management that allows capture and use of the emissions (an anerobic digester).
     
  16. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes NOx and Methane should be addressed. I’m amazed there is no reference to nitrogen stabilizing agents some of us have been using for years to stop denitrification. No mention of the new feed additive that decreases methane production in confined ruminants that @Bowerbird has been posting on PF about for quite sometime.

    Your article points out some valid concerns but whoever was responsible for writing it doesn’t seem to know much about solutions we’ve been using for a long time.

    Some of us are split applying protected nitrogen in season to no till ground while some farmers are still tilling in the fall and applying 100% nitrogen need for next spring’s crop via anhydrous ammonia in the fall. There is a huge spectrum of current practices and the article seems to miss a lot of the effective management strategies we’ve known about long term.

    But it’s a big subject and no article can be exhaustive so I get it. I do have concerns that people who want to influence something like agricultural emissions don’t really know much about them. It’s a bit dangerous as well as counter productive to have the least knowledgeable attempting to be the most influential.

    Agree biogas is underutilized. A lot of potential there.
     
    AFM, Jack Hays, Hotdogr and 1 other person like this.
  17. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    2,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The solutions mentioned in the article are fairly generic in scope. It went deeper than that, and referenced research. It’s late - don’t want to look now.
     
  18. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read the full link I think. Not sure if there were links inside the link I could have missed. They did bring up the feed additive for methane reduction but are skeptical of its safety. I looked into the product a year or so ago and can’t find any serious concerns with safety at this point. I believe it will be a commercially viable and effective method of methane emission reduction.
     
  19. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,569
    Likes Received:
    5,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good news! The only thing worse than finding a corn worm on the ear of corn you're eating, is finding HALF a corn worm. :puke:

    I've read this morning that putting a few drops of mineral oil on the top of each ear after it starts silking will prevent corn worms from developing, but not affect pollination, and not poison. I'm not farming 100 acres of corn, just a small patch of 40 or so plants, so I may try this.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2024
    AFM, 557 and Jack Hays like this.
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,157
    Likes Received:
    22,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Brought back memories.
    Long ago as a teenager I had a summer job working for a contract hay baler. Joke was that the only thing worse than a snake in your bale was half a snake in your bale; the remaining half was likely to be angry.
     
    AFM and Hotdogr like this.
  21. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cool tip with the mineral oil. Never heard it but it certainly sounds legit. I’ll pass it on to my in-laws. It would be perfect for their patch size as well. I hope it works for you. Hopefully you are in a climate you can give it a try yet this year with a short season variety in a fall garden!
     
  22. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,569
    Likes Received:
    5,794
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Was just mulling that over. I'm in central NC, so I could probably give it a shot and maybe get some corn this year.

    And, to keep this on topic: my corn patch will have negligible effect on global warming.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2024
    557 likes this.
  23. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, thanks to warming you have an approximately two week longer growing season than in 1970.


    upload_2024-8-27_10-34-31.png

    Figure 1. Length of Growing Season in the Contiguous 48 States, 1895–2023

    So your crop may not affect the climate much, but the change in climate sure gave you more opportunity to produce corn! Unless someone hates sweet corn for some reason, that’s a good thing!
     
    AFM, Jack Hays and Hotdogr like this.
  24. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    37,722
    Likes Received:
    12,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe it's a little off topic, but that's just yet another reason why "The Inflation Reduction Act" was a misnomer (given a name totally opposite from what sort of name would truly be befitting).
    Those sorts of policies are going to make American farming more expensive, as well as drive up food prices.

    I suggest people do some research about the farmer protests in the Netherlands and Canada over government attempts to cut down "nitrogen emissions" (nitrous oxide).
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2024
    Hotdogr and 557 like this.
  25. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    11,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Netherlands thing was nuts. They were literally upset that environmental nitrogen was ending up causing more trees to grow in their depleted soils deforested as far back as the Iron Age.

    From a past thread on the subject.

     
    Hotdogr likes this.

Share This Page