How do you solve a problem like Maria eating meat? Alternatives!

VS

 

The end is nigh!

Well I am not talking about 21st of December... regardless of what those great survivors the Mayans thought (even if THE Britney Spears 'sings' a song about it) the world won't end; but one absolute certainty is that the cows will come home to fart....

The end of my blogging days may be over... screams of please no I hear?!? (or are they all 'Thank God!')... nevertheless I will try and look at the alternatives to a life in an atmosphere of animal farts.

From what the much of the literature points to as the driver in increased livestock production, demand seems to generate the largest fundamental factor in the quantity of emissions. So, to reduce emissions and other detrimental effects of livestock farming we have to reduce demand and consumption.

This is not easy... I personally do not want to stop eating meat altogether, although, after watching the documentary Mat the Truth, I was seriously contemplating going cold turkey... on turkey...

Proteins are vital to human health and life. So if we don't eat meat, what would we eat instead?

A commonly given example is fish. Fish is often seen as a better food stuff than meat, but fishing has caused a substantial amount of environmental damages as well as the state of fish stocks world wide ebbing closer and closer to depletion. The UN FAO World Fisheries and Aquaculture report (2010) states that 32% of stocks are over exploited/depleted or recovering; 53% are fully exploited and 15% are moderately exploited. Shifting more than a billion people in the developed world onto an already stressed resource will cause its collapse. Greater consumption of smaller fish which is environmentally sustainable and healthier for you is one option. If this resource is ever going to support an increasing number of people then sustainability is required, please read Worm et al. (2009) for an in depth insight into the potential approaches to take, most could be applied to other environmental problems; a multidisciplinary approach.

Corn, Soy and Grains are the food stuffs we generally feed to livestock. They are also very much fit for human consumption; but we tend to feed more of it to the meat we eat then personally consume ourselves. I personally don't eat corn... I know shoot me... but as you will find out in a later post (ooh foreshadowing I know right?!) I have taken certain steps in the right direction already!

This list doesn't look too impressive... but one factor easily neglected is simply reducing the amount of meat we eat. Meatless Fridays, or what Roman Catholics call Fridays... notable celebrities do it, Paul McCartney, Leona Lewis, they are talented because they eat a lot less meat... in fact none! OK... there is no link between talent and meat consumption. 

Reducing meat consumption has many benefits. You are healthier, richer (from not buying any meat, doesn't work if your meat originates in a five finger discount manner), aiding the environment in becoming less polluted and less full of cow farts. Also you can waste all those calories on chocolate, more room for nutella! OK I am not advising you to go on to an all nutella diet as fun as it would be, full of chocolaty goodness..... OMG it has been so long since I have had nutella I would kill love to have some right now..... *drools* mmmmmmm. Nutella pizza - nutella instead of tomato sauce and kinder in place of cheese. HEAVEN... like this, but rather than the nuts (which are a great source of proteins and energy!!!) add bananas... *collapses*.

10 minutes later....*wakes up*

Back to the point!

My New Years resolution is to eat less meat... so far I think I have eaten a little meat every day FAIL, but it hasn't been one whole week yet!

So I'll let you ponder about other foods you can stuff yourself with... but remember put down the fork, don't eat too much beef chicken or pork!

Replying to a comment! Again!

This is another reply to another great comment posted on the 'Free the Turkeys! Put down that fork!!!' post made on Christmas Eve! Yulia K wrote:

"I agree, the last video you posted is very insightful, reminding us of the priorities. I like the idea of using pee for P and hope it materilizes, as this will provide us with a renewable source of P, alleviating one of the numerous global problems. However, your last three posts also made me realize something more gloomy, which is that in reality people choose to lead an unsustainable lifestyle, such as choosing to consume meat, and shift the blame for problems such as the global food shortages onto factors like biofuels, for example, which is what I am writing about in my blog. 

It takes 3-4 times more P to support a meat-based diet and also more land to cultivate meat, as land is needed to produce cattle feed too. This means that meat production uses more natural resources, indirectly resulting in the food shortages. If we evaluated what our priorities are and all took responsibility for our own actions, would it not make more sense to lead a less meat-intensive diet, as this would free up the natural resources, such as land and P? 

I find this issue very relevant to biofuels, as decreasing our meat consumption and food waste would likely result in less food shortages and free up more land for activities such as sustainable biofuel cultivation, which should result in GHG emissions savings and greater energy security. Would this not be more useful than leaving all as it is at present i.e. blaming so much on biofuels, for example, as the Gallagher Report (2008) seems to do, preventing the cultivation of biofuels, carrying on with our meat-intensive diet and high P consumption to then realize in the future that food shortages are still increasing as more and more people consume more, P and fossil fuels are running out and we are not prepared for that, and our GHG emissions have not decreased.

While I am also a hypocrite promoting a vegetarian diet here, my point is that I feel that too much emphasis is placed onto blaming industrial activities for the global problems and very little onto us, the consumers, which is not always useful. Therefore I very much agree with you that we should take greater action as citizens (I think this is what you were trying to say, if I understood correctly), even though technological fixes may help."

My Reply:

Thanks for this EPIC post!

You are right; if we did eat less meat, then it would be significantly justifiable to produce more biofuel. However like every other resource or commodity it falls down to the distribution of the meat that is important. If the cost of meat actually took ecosystem service costs into consideration as well as environmental valuations then the cost would increase and there are potentially two outcomes: decrease in demand, reducing consumption; increase in 'innovative' ways at maximising profits to reduce cost production and increase consumption through economies of scale.

The first way would disproportionately affect those who have the lowest incomes as cheap meat is sometime the only source of protein in a diet as most substitutes cost a lot more. The second would lead to further environmental and ecological degradation as intensive farming would become more intensive at the cost of land quality, animal welfare and pollution.

The second point is relevant due to the EU 'wide' ban onBattery hen egg farming. A reported 80 million hens are being 'freed' (some are going to be slaughtered) due to new legislation preventing the use of the current intensive hen cages to produce eggs; a new 'enriched' cage (37% bigger) has to be used.

This results in a just bigger than a sheet of A4 paper space per chicken in a cage. Not that nice! (some info on ending factory farming here).

If we all became concerned consumers and thought about our individual actions then we would achieve a lot more than holistic legislation which is passing the buck of responsibility to people we pay and elect to act for us. I agree with you. Consumption is the problem; and as consumers, we are the ones who have to change OUR habits.

I hope this reply isn’t too bad! I like posting long posts too! :D

Add a little P, get a load more Poo! Part 4: P reserves and losses!

Cordell et al. (2009)’s paper on the story of phosphorous is a MUST READ! 

It is packed full of information on the subject… but I will try my best to extract the useful information. Being half Moroccan (half Italian), I can’t help but rub my hands with glee… the largest stores of P are locating in the country (regardless of what anyone says, Western Sahara does not exist in Morocco; we call the southern provinces… moving swiftly on…!) as shown in the figure below from Elser and Bennet (2011). 

This is however a big problem in terms of global securities and power balances. With turmoil in north Africa and the apparent ‘revolutions’ reaching their 1^st birthday, it is more important than ever that food and the fertiliser used, does not fall into the same fate as it did 3-4 years back with the large prices rises in grains (Elser and Bennet, 2011). 700% price rise in P coupled with the price rise signalled a warning light to governments worldwide. However, as Cordell et al. (2009) and Elser and Bennet (2011) note, the world still is not reacting to this train wreck; they can’t even pull their act together on gas emissions and the Kyoto agreement (COP Durban 2011 round of talks).

One thing is for sure is that if we use less, costs will go down and we are less dependent on another out-sourced commodity that everyone needs. If we all became vegetarian, then we would require significantly less P than a meat based diet, and most of the crop can easily be returned to the soil as residue, recycling most of the P used as a fertiliser. Even so; the largest wastage of P originates in the poor application of fertilisers to soils (8 million tonnes, MT). Leeching of the synthetically produced nutrients results in massive inefficiencies in P management; contaminating ground, surface and coastal waters with high levels of nutrients had led to vast amounts of eutrophication.

Eutrophication is when nutrients (either via leeching direct from fertilisers or poor waste management) added to water bodies causes the growth of organisms; algal blooms are a common example of added nutrients altering the natural ecology of a body of water (lake, sea, estuary, etc.). (Smithand Schindler, 2009) The blooms photosynthesis at high rates, starving most other organisms of oxygen (increased when the blooms die and decompose); creating a hypoxic environment.

Please read more on eutrophication in these sites:

• http://rtseablog.blogspot.com/2011/03/eutrophication-mapping-first-steps-that.html
• http://feastingonnaturalresources.blogspot.com/ This blog, by Megan Smith is great! She also talks about agriculture and environmental issues surrounding the wider debate. I highly recommend her post on Coastal Eutrophication – The impact of Agriculture in Chesapeake Bay

Back to wastes of P and as the figure above (Cordell et al. 2009) suggests, 14/17.5 MT of P go to agriculture; of that only 3 MT make it to our forks. 8 MT is wasted through poor application, and of the 3 MT we consume as food, 1 MT is wasted as spoiled food. By just eating within our means we save 1 MT. through better fertiliser management techniques with save an extra 8 MT. It is easier said than done, but through accurate monitoring of soil nutrient levels, we can guage whether or not the land needs to be fertilised, saving energy, money and effort as well as P. Using more natural fertiliser we can solve some of the problems, by no means is sh… poo a panacea for eutrophication/power insecurities/commodity prices/waste management/agricultural productivity and the like, but it is a step in the right direction!

Reserves of P aren't well documented globally, in fact many researches, scientists, geologists and mad hatters disagree as to how much P there is under ground. Cordell et al. (2009) explores this using a number of different scenarios showing just how long it would take, depending on how much P we need, to finally hit the last nail on the head of the coffin that would be global inorganic P reserves. 

Next part coming soon!

Replying to a comment!

I felt this deserved a whole post because I wrote too much to respond in a comment; the comment too (by Emily Smith who has a great blog called Treading on thin ice; about glacial melt and it's consequences - its great please take a look, I am not doing it justice!) highlights some issues that we face in the coming decades.

Her original comment was: 

"You're right it is a really provocative video. I hadn't even heard of the riots in 2008, let alone known they were partially due to phosphorus shortages. It really makes you think about our priorities, especially if the peak could be reached by 2035. Even if the peak is in 300-400 years like the Fertiliser Agency stated, its the wrong attitude to pass it off to future generations to deal with. Saying that, I'm not sure how many people, me included would be willing to give up meat. And even if they did, if it's a finite resource, I wonder what proportion of the population can be sustained when the phosphorus resource has run out? Not 7 billion I expect."

My Response:

It is very true, I personally love to eat meat occasionally, but how much meat we eat I feel is the question. Humans have always eaten meat, and in some parts of the world, meat is reared without the use of extensive amounts of resources, for instance well within the ‘carrying capacity’ of certain countries; especially subsistence farming.

Intensive agriculture has resulted in massive amounts of fertiliser being used when it is not even required (Europe for instance; I have read this in a journal article but fail to remember at the moment!). We eat a lot of meat, but by just looking at any reduced aisle in any supermarket we can see huge amounts of meat wasted; no one buys every meat product. Just think, how many times have you walked past a butchers or a deli counter in a supermarket and thought about buying meat a few days to expiration and left it? Or even thrown out some left over gone off meat? Please do not think I am accusing you personally of this (lol!) but society is wasteful, regardless of how conscious we are individually.

By reducing waste in the consumption of meat, I’m guessing (not very academic here!) that we will naturally produce less meat, or meat per capita. The alternatives of a low-meat high-protein diet result in either large shifts in diets to legumes/beans/soya (which the cows generally eat as feed now) or fish. Fish is one of the most consistently exhausted and depended upon food sources we have, adding more pressure could cause greater depletion of an already controversial ‘commons’ resource.

The fact that meat production will almost certainly increase in line with demographic change requires a renewable source of P, that’s where natural fertilisers come in. Like the video material has shown, P is not really absorbed by our body, so most of it passes straight out; the P used to make the meal for one person is now available to be used to make food for another person. We just need to roll this out on a large scale, thanks to urbanisation; the feasibility of capturing P from human waste is easier from cities. There is a great potential in harnessing P; and there are just as interesting ways of utilising this resource which I hope to explore in greater depth soon!!!

Sorry for the long reply! :D And I hope you do not mind me using your comment!

Add a little P, get a load more Poo! Part 1: The whole debate around fertiliser.

Livestock feed on animal feed which is produced from some main ingredients which include: corn, soybeans, sorghum, oats and barley. The more cows you want to milk, the more plants you need to grow to turn into feed for the cows.

Plants, like every other living creature, needs nutrients to live, grow and reproduce. This is where the whole debate around food security comes in, and an element we call Phosphorous (P).

P is necessary for living organisms, in the case of plants, phosphorous is used not just energy pathways (respiration) but also growth and most constrainedly, root growth and so uptake of other vital nutrients.

Now agriculture is a business...a very big agri-business. To maximise crop production and yield, you do not want the amount of P in the soil to limit growth, this is the same for the other vital nutrients (Nitrogen and Potassium). NPK fertiliser is added to soils to allow plants to grow. But where does this fertiliser come from... we have known for millennia that poo is just as good a fertiliser as anything else, once more it's natural and we have loads of the stuff!

The mining of P for decades has started to make people wonder... we have had a peak in oil production...will the same happen for phosphorous? Short answer yes. With any finite resource, which P is one, there will always be a peak, and a downward trend following it.

So as I begin to shed light on the nutrient side of things, here is an article calling peak phosphorous into the light, and the implications it might have on foreign policy and food security... who'd 'a thought it... cow poo is related to international relations eh?!?

To eat or not to eat meat… That is the question! Part 1: is it all demand?

When people debate the issue around livestock and the negatives of increasing production of meat and livestock associated products many say we should reduce meat consumption.

REALLY?!?

Now sure, one way we COULD reduce emissions from livestock is to cut down on our sausages, chicken legs and kebabs; after all, less cows and sheep farting, less direct methane emissions. But there are other issues around more animals on the planet that feed our hunger for meat. This paper by McApline et al. 2009 looks at environmental degradation in Colombia, Brazil and Australia due to expanding beef production and the deforestation it causes.

A big issue around emissions from livestock is the fact that there are large indirect GHG emissions from forest clearance and land use changes. The paper looks at factors that have increased beef production and surprisingly, in some countries like Brazil, it is not supply and demand which dictate beef production and emissions; its land prices. Land policy in Brazil has made it more profitable to clear once natural rainforest and keep it clear than let it be. The cheapest way to keep vegetation from establishing again is to regularly cut regrowth… cows are surprisingly good at turning grass into milk, meat, leather and other useful products for human consumption. This not only has a dramatic effect on local ecosystem services and physiography; the global consequences include depletion of the capacity for natural carbon sequestration.

Meat is big business. Curtailing meat production will directly affect the economies which rely mainly on agriculture and the primary sector. This is a controversial topic as if a country is able to utilise its natural resources within its territory for economic means and development ‘at the expense’ of the environment, who are we to judge? We chopped down our ‘oak’ forests centuries ago to fight wars with continental Europe. With the specific driver of meat production in this context being land management, economical profitability and natural lawn mowers; there is an assumption that if the main driver of livestock (beef) expansion being the one stated, then whether you eat the meat or not, there still will be emissions from it, albeit highly inefficient per capita of digestion. In the case of Australia, land management reform in the favour of protecting old growth forests has reduced the profitability in expanding cheap, subsidised (through tax incentives) cattle ranches. This protection has worked, again regardless of whether Sheila or Russell eat steak or love veggie burgers.

However, with all business, it is fundamentally based on a market; therefore demand. If demand for meat (whatever the reason) decreases; then production and emissions would – economically speaking – decrease too.

I will explore more arguments around decreasing dependence on livestock as a food source. However, I am guessing it isn’t as straight forward as I think it’s going to be!

Fossilised farts (and other agroGHGs)! Part 3: The critiques of fart records: it’s ALL NATURAL.

Now both articles (Fuller et al., 2011; Ruddiman et al., 2011) and their side of the debate have critiques. From these graphs (from Ruddiman et al., 2011) they become evident:

In the first (A) graph you can see that the relationship between CH₄ concentrations and population is not constant. Initially CH₄ per capita increased proportionally, then methane rose steadily whilst population was rising exponentially. This decoupling is down to (what Ruddiman et al. 2011 note from Ellis and Wang in 1997) different land production efficiencies and priorities. With increasing intensification techniques, like rearing cattle, more land and plants are needed as well as primitive ruminants who haven’t been selectively bred to maximise meat or milk production yet. These inefficiencies which increase CH₄ release (IPCC, 2006) where only dealt with during the latter half of the Holocene, this is just one argument supporting anthropogenic methane emissions prior to the Anthropocene; this decouples methane and population, whilst explain the change in rates. Also land use per capita dropped, as seen in the second graph, that is not to say that the early human pastoralists had large herds of cows farting across the once green, bread-basket of the Sahara, it just highlights primitive techniques of farming. Quantifying the contributions of CH₄ into rice agriculture and livestock rearing category is hard as more research needs to be undertaken (Fuller et al., 2011; Singarayer et al., 2011).

Picking up on the point of the inter-polar gradient (IPG), Chappellaz et al. (1997) investigated the difference between the polar records of methane concentrations. Studying the Arctic GRIP ice core and the Antarctic BYRD and D47 ice cores, they attributed the changes in the IPG to initially (5.7 and 2.5 – 5 ka) lower atmospheric CH₄ levels due to the on-going drying of the tropical regions combined with massive peat land growth in the northern boreal regions after 5 ka. With a recent period (ca. 1 ka) increases due to increased wetness and significant anthropogenic emissions. Harder et al. (2007) investigates this further, coupling a GCM with information on the sinks of methane; volatile organic compounds (VOC) and the sea (changes in sea surface temperature, SST). Another vital sink, the largest in fact (and one I hope to investigate further is the hydroxyl radical (­^●OH). Stressing the importance of changes in the various other sources and sinks, Harder et al.’s research show that the IPG changes are the result of dynamics within the ‘methane cycle’, between the balance between the sources/sinks. However, they draw attention to the necessity to improve understanding about how methane may react with other GHGs especially considering the fact that the hydroxyl radical is the sink for many other GHGs. Any anthropogenic influence on the changing methane concentrations either at 5 ka or in the IPG has been sidelined.

This point is underlined by Singarayer et al. (2011) as concluding remarks describe the lack of model evidence successfully calibrating predicted and observed data sets, with an anthropogenic input providing a correct outcome. It goes even further saying, and I quote:

“The late Holocene increase in methane can be primarily ascribed to increasing emissions from the Southern Hemisphere tropics. In the late Holocene, unlike the last interglacial, these increases are not counteracted by equivalent decreases in Northern Hemisphere emissions. We suggest therefore that direct anthropogenic influences are not necessary to explain the late Holocene methane record.”

Rather than the idea of cows farting (as it is quite hard to believe!); Singarayer et al. (2011) looks into possible overlooked variables. Exploring such variables like: glacial extent, and how it may effect subtle changes in the source regions; seasonality of the SH tropical wetland, and the resulting emissions; but most importantly, the link to the Eemian period where the orbital configuration is comparable to the present (and where models attempting to show the anthropogenic link fall short). They reaffirm their point that SH emissions were not counteracted with NH CH₄ emission decreases.

Even Burns (2011) discusses the possibility of an ‘all-natural’ 5 ka methane rise due to tropical produce methane causing the deviation from the expected. Burns looks at speleothem records to infer monsoonal strengths. It shows that the monsoons did migrate southwards, so making the highly productive tropics and areas south of the equator increasingly waterlogged and, ergo, greater CH₄ productive. It does seem that it is a one or the other theory approach… Neo can only take either the red or blue pill. There is no such thing as a purple one. But here, I would suggest that even though evidence is in favour of an all-natural approach. In my opinion one cannot exclusively write out the other, and the debate will go on for ages; but archaeological evidence shows the techniques expansion. Whether you like it or not, ruminants fart, producing methane, as well as humans might I add!

I would like to think that thousands of years ago my ancestors around the Mediterranean were herding farting sheep, farting cows and farting chickens, contributing to increasing methane concentrations in the atmosphere. It was a simpler time; it was a less fartier time!

Reference list for the 3 parts of Fossilised Farts (and other agroGHGs)!

Brook, E. J., Sowers, T. and Orchardo, J., 1996, Rapid variations in atmospheris methane concentration during the past 110,000 years, Science, 273, 1087-1091 pp.

Burns, S. J., 2011, speleothem records of changes in tropical hydrology over the Holocene and possible implications for atmospheric methane, The Holocene (special issue), 1-7 pp.

Chappellaz, J., Blunier, T., Kints, S., Dallenbach, A., Barnota, J., Schwander. J., Raynaud, D. and Stauffer, B., 1997, Changes in the atmospheric CH­₄ gradient between Greenland and Antarctica during the Holocene, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, D13, 15,987-15,997 pp

Ellis, E. C. and Wang, S. M., 1997, Sustainable traditional agriculture in the Tai Lake region of China, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 61, 177-193 pp.

Fuller, D. Q., Manning, K., Castillo, C., Kingwell-Banham, E., Weisskopf, A., Qin, L., Sato, Y. and Hijmans, 2011, The contribution of rice agriculture and livestock pastoralism to prehistoric methane levels: An archaeological assessment, The Holocene, 21, 743-759 pp.

Harder, S. L., Shindell, D. T., Schmidt, G. A. and Brook, E. J., 2007, A global climate model study of CH₄ emissions during the Holocene and glacial-interglacial transitions constrained by ice core data, Global biogeochemical cycles, 21, GB1011, 1-13 pp.

IPCC, 2006, CH4 Emissions from enteric fermentation,in Guidelinesfor National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4 Agriculture, Forestry andOther Land Use, writtenby Gibbs, M. J., Conneely, D., Johnson, D., Lasse, K. R. and Ulyatt M.J., , 297-320 pp. 

Ruddiman, W. F., Kutzbach, J. E. and Vavrus, A. J., 2011, Can natural or anthropogenic explanations of late-Holocene CO₂ and CH­₄ increases be falsified? The Holocene, 21, 865-879 pp.

Schlit, A., Baumgartner, M., Schwander, J., Buiron, D., Capron, E., Chappellaz, J., Loulergue, L., Schupbach, S., Spahni, R., Fischer, H. and Stocker, T., 2010, Atmospheric nitrous oxide during the last 140,000 years, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 300, 33-43 pp.

Singarayer, J. S., Valdes, P. J., Friedlingstein, P., Nelson, S. and Beerling, D. J., 2011, Late Holocene methane rise caused by orbitally controlled increase in tropical sources, Nature, 470, 82-86 pp.

Sowers, T., 2010, Atmospheric methane isotope records covering the Holocene period, Quaternary science Reviews, 29, 213-221 pp.

Wolff, E. W., 2011, Methane and Monsoons, Nature, 470, 49-50 pp.

Fossilised farts (and other agroGHGs)! Part 2: The expansion of Livestock and the debate around the Anthropocene.

Now, studies by Brook et al. (1996); Schlit et al. (2010); Sowers (2010); Burns (2011); Singrayer et al. (2011) and Wolff (2011) all show ice core records and other proxies (analogues for past environmental records) like speleothem (calcite deposits) to show CH₄ and other GHGs like N₂O over the Holocene (11 ka BP; Sowers, 2010) to 140 ka (Schlit et al. 2010). These records show the link between precessional cycles and CH₄ concentrations; but up until 5 ka, the CH₄ concentration deviated from what is expected due to the precessional cycle. The NH has been at an insolation minima due to the precessional cycle being in a NH negative stage (i.e. the southern hemisphere, SH, has more intense summers and winters).

This discrepancy between expected and observed therefore does not follow the natural process. Now shoot me if you must, but I agree with research put forward by Ruddiman, and I am joining in the argument/debate on the Anthropocene. In an article by Ruddiman et al. in a special issue Holocene published in June 2011 (where some of the other 2011 articles from Holocene are taken) attempts to falsify anthropogenic and natural increases in CO₂ and CH₄. The case states that only one other (stage 11) deglaciation has a similar increase in methane after the initial peak and decreasing tail (which would be due to a natural or at least non-anthropogenic process). All of the records (except stage 11) show a decrease of CH₄ in line with NH summer insolation minima. Stage 1 (our current Holocene/Anthropocene) does not follow this trend. Due to the rise and spread of humans through the globe, the establishment of civilisations and the first age of modernity through agricultural development, Ruddiman et al. (2011) and Fuller et al. (2011) show that it is expansion of agricultural practices of wet-rice farming and livestock intensification which is responsible for the anomalous rise in atmospheric methane contribution. This is significant for this blog as it shows (even among scientists like myself… ok I am only a student) humans have had an effect on the greater environment and the Earth’s ecosystems through a variety of anthropogenic process; relating this to livestock they include deforestation (increasing CO₂) and increased agricultural production (increasing CH₄ and later with the green revolution N₂O). This rise is evident 5 ka; that is why I believe that humans have had a significant impact on the earth before 250 yrs BP, it’s been 5 ka that’s how far the Anthropocene extends. This is shown in the graph taken from Fuller et al. 2011. 

Graph showing CH₄ predicted (NH insolation records) and measured CH₄ in GRIP ice core over time.

The Fuller et al. (2011) article looks at agricultural (pastoral and arable) contributions to prehistoric methane levels, using archaeological evidence to match it to the GHG records. This graph from their article shows the deviation from the predicted methane concentrations from the GRIP ice core. The black square points represent actual methane concentrations. The difference between the two data sets is ‘potentially’ cow farts and other anthropogenic processes (causing the deviation). They go deeper, investigating the spatial distribution of the technologies and knowledge of the more intensive (and greater GHG producing) agricultural techniques over time. Here are some maps showing the expansion of livestock practices:

Southern and Eastern Asia Livestock technique dispersal Fuller et al. 2011

Africa Livestock technique dispersal Fuller et al. 2011 

Southern Asia Livestock technique dispersal Fuller et al. 2011

The increased expansion of these farming practices means that more food was able to be cultivated, for direct food (like rice) or indirect food (like livestock feed).  This archaeological evidence shows the actual distribution of the increasing anthropogenic CH₄ sources. Another integral point (that will be elaborated on in part 3 of Fossilised farts) is the fact that the inter-polar gradient (IPG) between ice core records of CH­₄ concentration in Greenland and Antarctica begin to equate (Chappellaz et al., 1997; Burns, 2011). If for instance the NH boreal arctic polar circumference began to emit greater amounts of CH₄, then Greenland’s ice cores will have a greater concentration of the gas than Antarctica’s cores due to the proximity and difficulty of inter-polar diffusion. The fact that the IPG is levelling out shows that the source is low latitude; agricultural expansion into Africa, Southern Asia and South-Eastern Asia can be an explanation to this. Coupled with greater CH₄ emissions from the amazion basin (due to a stronger SH summer) and other low latitude CH₄ sources; this could explain the 5 ka rise. 

Contributions to global GHG emissions in a flow chart!

This flow diagram shows global GHG emissions from different sectors including agriculture; each sector is then divided up into end use/activity which produce GHGs, in this case 'livestock and manure' which is accountable for 5.1% of total GHG emissions directly (i.e farting); not including indirect forms of emissions from deforestation, feed or indeed energy used in their transportation (this is a separate flow).

From this image it is easy to see where the largest cuts in emissions could be from energy generation, especially when considering we have alternatives to conventional (but deadly) fossil fuel combustion.

The image is from: http://www.wri.org/chart/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2005.

Welcome!

Welcome!

This blog is to inform, amaze, inspire and of course explain the many uses of poo… Now please do not adjust your screens or refresh the page, I did just write poo.

Before we indulge ourselves in the wonders of excretion, understanding of the past is vital to analysing potential solutions of present problems for the future. In this context, methane (CH4) is a significant greenhouse gas (GHG), 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2) and one way that it is emitted is in the form of cow (and other animal) farts, and the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials, like manure. 

But before all of that! Here is a video that makes light of the fundamental argument that I am making.

Enjoy and I will post again soon!