CATTLE AND METHANE GAS

The production of methane gas by ruminant animals is often given as a reason by some people as a reason for avoiding meat to mitigate the potential effects of methane on global warming.  The notion exists that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  Like so many issues surrounding agriculture, a little knowledge is dangerous and leads many people to the wrong conclusions.  It even led to the New Zealand Government at one point considering a financial penalty for the farming of ruminant animals. 

There is a popular belief that methane is something like 20 to 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide – an example of how if you repeat a lie enough times people start believing it.  Here are a few facts:

• ·         Carbon dioxide is nearly three times heavier than methane so if equal volumes of the gases are compared rather than weights it is evident that the warming ability of methane is grossly overstated. 
• ·         Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years whereas methane has a half-life of around eight years converting into carbon dioxide and water. 
• ·         There appears to be little correlation between methane levels and the number of ruminants on the planet.  Increases in the number of ruminant animals has resulted in no corresponding increase in methane levels in the atmosphere. 
• 
  

·         Livestock agriculture contributes between 15% and 28% of global methane emissions from human activity.  The balance comes from activities such as rice growing, landfills and pipeline leaks. 

Having discussed the relative potency of methane and carbon dioxide, perhaps the most important point is that in many ways it is irrelevant.  I raise livestock in the rangelands of Australia where there are few alternative land uses and cattle are raised in close as possible to a natural environment.  It is one of the most benign forms of food production.  The vegetation that grows here would be eaten or broken down by something.  In our case it is cattle converting the grass to meat – if the cattle were not there the grass would be eaten by termites or broken down by microorganisms releasing methane into the atmosphere. 

The digestion performed by ruminant animals is truly a miracle of nature which brings into agricultural production land that would otherwise be unsuitable for production.  It is a form of food production which should be promoted rather than the opposite. 

FURTHER READING

Brill, Barry (2011)  Methane:  myths and misrepresentations.  http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2011/05/barry-rill-methane/

Schwartz, Judith D (2013) Cows save the planet and other improbable ways of restoring soil to heal the earth.  Chelsea Green Publishing. 

The Case for Livestock Farming Part 2

We often hear of the disconnect between urban dwellers and the farming community here in Australia and in other parts of the world.  Most people don’t grow food and many don’t know anyone who does grow food and have little understanding of how their food is produced. 

It seems to me that the disconnect goes further than that – the urban existence means that many people no longer have an appreciation for the circle of life.  Temple Grandin puts it this way – “Unfortunately most people never observe the natural cycle of birth and death.  They do not realise that for one thing living to survive, another living thing must die”. 

Life feeds on life – every living thing whether it is a fish, bird, bacteria, plant or fungi feeds on other living things.  Humans are part of this despite the fact that most of our food is sourced from a supermarket. 

Grazing animals of which domesticated livestock are an important component of this cycle of life.  Ruminant animals have the ability to digest cellulose in grass in their rumen – the first component of their complex digestive system.  Of course it is not the animal that is digesting the cellulose but the bacteria, fungi and protozoa in the rumen. 

Livestock are able to digest the plant material and return nutrients to the soil through urine and faeces.  Without the grazing the plant material will continue to build up and prevent new plant material from growing.  The grasses need the livestock as much as the livestock needs the grass. 

In addition to gaining the benefit of recycled nutrients, people are able to benefit from livestock through the supply of products such as meat, milk and fibre.  In Australia most of the land mass is made up of open rangelands.  Cattle are able to utilise the vegetation on marginal, uncultivated land and convert this into food. 

 

Further Reading

Thinking in Pictures.  And Other Reports from My Life with Autism.  Temple Grandin.  Vintage Books. 

 

GRASSLANDS

Grasslands are areas with few natural trees or shrubs and are dominated be grasses as the name suggests.  These are some of the world’s most iconic landscapes – think of the plains of the Serengeti in Africa, the savannas of North America and the steppes of Europe and Asia. 

Here on the Plains grasslands are a vital part of our livestock business supporting significant cattle production.  An important part of our business management is matching the needs of our livestock with pasture availability.  This ensures that the land is not overgrazed and the welfare of the livestock is maintained. 

A particular issue we have with the grasslands on Anna Plains is the encroachment of Mealeuca (paperbark) species on the grasslands of Anna Plains.  Photo monitoring from station management together with aerial photos and satellite images shows the encroachment of paperbark. 

These trees obviously reduce pasture availability to livestock and they reduce the abundance of foraging ground for migratory shorebirds.  In addition they also provide refuge for predators such as birds of prey and feral cats. 

The encroachment of trees onto grasslands is not a situation unique to this part of the world.  Reports of trees encroaching onto grasslands have been made in Africa and North America. 

The reasons for the tree encroachment are on grasslands are not fully understood.  One reason could be increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which favour the growth of trees as opposed to grasses.

 

Most of the grasses in this part of the world use the C3 pathway for photosynthesis as opposed to the C4 pathway which many trees have evolved to use.  C4 plants are more efficient than C3 plants and are well adapted to high temperatures and moist environments, both features of our grasslands here on the Plains, particularly in the wet season.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase.  If the higher levels of carbon dioxide are a factor in the spread of trees on the grassland then we will have to learn to deal with it.  Potential management solutions include the use of fire to control tree growth and the use of grazing animals to knock back the trees.  The use of herbicides could also be considered in some areas although the scale of the rangelands means this solution would be impractical. 

FURTHER READING

Grasslands in a changing world.  Drovers Cattle Network.  http://www.cattlenetwork.com/expert-columns/?author=Joseph+Craine&aid=213203031

Is Agriculture Different? Part One

Is agriculture different from any other industry?  Is the production of food a more noble endeavour than any other human endeavour?

Many would answer yes to these questions – especially farmers like me – and would use these arguments to justify special assistance from Government.   It is an argument that has worked extremely well in most developed countries other than Australia and New Zealand.  The fact that agriculture is also subject to the vagaries of the weather also is used to justify special assistance. 

The chart below compares the level of support for farmers in different countries as compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

Source:  Australian Farm Institute. 

The data will come as no shock to Australian farmers – that they receive the least support from their Government.  In other countries, they believe that farming is much more than just another business – it is a social imperative that must be supported by Government. 

Successive Australian Governments at State and Federal levels have pursued economic deregulation across entire sectors of the economy including the farm sector.  There are a number of sectors of the economy that have escaped the deregulatory push, but that is another story.

Support to Australian producers is limited to the odd drought payment and some support for research and development.  Other countries are content to go on subsidising their farm sectors through a variety of means.

Indeed it now seems that not only will Australian primary producers not receive any additional support, but they will contribute a disproportionately higher burden of taxation revenue than other sectors of the economy (in reality “negatively subsidised”).  The recent Commission of Audit for the Federal Government recommended a number of cuts to rural programs including abolishing the Rural Financial Counselling Services, halving funding to the National Landcare Program, abolishing the Farm Finance concessional loans scheme and reducing support for Research and Development Corporations. 

In addition to these measures, there has been talk of reducing the diesel fuel rebate scheme which rebates the diesel fuel excise to groups such as miners and farmers when they use diesel off-road.  This reflects the fact that producers using diesel off-road should not have to pay the excise to fund road building.  Any change to this scheme will be the “thin edge of the wedge” as any introduction to reduce the rebate will be ramped up by subsequent Governments. 

My own view is that Agriculture in Australia should not receive any special help but instead be given a “fair go” by all levels of Government, something which has not happened in recent years. The reality now for my business in Western Australia is that we pay very high shire rates for the services provided to us (virtually none) and we pay pastoral lease rents at a rate tent times that prevailing in the Northern Territory. It is possible to put in place strategies to mitigate the effects of the drought but impossible to manage unfair Government policies.

The Case for Livestock Farming Part 1

There are many arguments put forward against livestock farming, none of which have any substance.  One of the arguments against livestock farming is the environmental one.  It always disappoints me to hear people say that to reduce their carbon footprint they should reduce their meat consumption.  Such glib statements while not only being profoundly ignorant do nothing to further the cause of the environmental movement. 

We produce meat in the rangelands of Australia – it is one of the most environmentally benign forms of food production.  There are minimal inputs such as fertiliser or herbicides and the land supports a variety of plants in contrast to the monoculture of modern cropping operations. 

The grass produced on the station will either be fermented on the ground or in the fermentation vats that are the digestive system of a cow.  By having a cow utilise the grass then we can utilise the output of this fermentation.  And by appropriate management of the livestock on the property we can maximise the carbon that is sequestered by the vegetation. 

The use of livestock can also reduce the fuel load through the grazing of herbaceous plant material thus reducing the probability and negative consequences of wild fire.  Thus if we eliminated beef production in our neck of the woods it is likely that carbon output would increase and nothing would be produced.  

The potential benefits of livestock farming in the rangelands have been recently highlighted by Allan Savory with his talk on TED receiving more than one million viewers.  Mr Savory illustrates the potential to produce food on land while improving its condition by mimicking nature.