Scientists agree the major driver behind the rise in global greenhouse gas emissions is

human activity. How does farming fit it and,what is the contribution of animal agriculture

and how are these values calculated?

The consuming public is more and more interested in where their food comes from, what’s the

carbon footprint. What’s the carbon footprint, or the what’s

the environmental footprint, of a gallon of milk, or a pound of beef, or a pound of chicken

meat? We want to look at the greenhouse gasses coming

off the farm and how we can change strategies.

My name is david schmidt and I’m an agricultural engineer at the University of Minnesota and

regional coordinator for for the national project, Animal Agriculture in a Changing

Climate. There is a significant amount of miscommunication about the role of agriculture

in climate change. Some say that animal agriculture is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas

emissions while others deny any contribution from animals. The answer lies somewhere in

between. The objective of this video is to provide you with a solid foundation of how

emission estimates are calculated and the real contributions of animal agriculture to

US and global GHG emissions.

Carbon is all around us. It is the fourth most abundant chemical element in the universe,

behind hydrogen, helium and oxygen. The biggest reservoir of carbon is stored

in rocks- approximately 66,000 gigatons with one gigaton is equal to 1 trillion kilograms.

The second biggest reservoir is the deep ocean, and the third largest reservoir is in fossil

fuels. The atmosphere and the surface ocean are the smallest carbon reservoirs but possibly

the most important. Carbon is moving between these reservoirs constantly because of a variety

of chemical and biological processes. This is known as the carbon cycle.

The total amount of carbon that cycles in and out of the atmosphere naturally each year

is about 210 gigatons. The arrows and yellow numbers indicate this movement, or cycling

of carbon. Plants and oceans are referred to as net carbon “sinks” because they

absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they emit. These carbon emissions occur in

the form of plant respiration and chemical exchanges with the ocean.

The red numbers indicate the human influence in the cycle, also known as “anthropogenic

emissions.” They can be mostly be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels and changes

in land use. Human activities contribute nine gigatons of carbon emissions annually. About

two gigatons of that carbon gets taken up or absorbed by the ocean. Three gigatons of

that carbon gets absorbed by plants through photosynthesis and taken up in plant soil

system. All this movement results in an annual net increase of about four gigatons of carbon

going into the atmosphere each year.

As you can see in this diagram, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was relatively

stable for hundreds of thousands of years, at an average of around 230 parts per million.

Then about 100 years ago, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere began climbing to where

it is right now, about 400 parts per million.

This animated diagram more dramatically illustrates the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s

atmosphere in more recent years, since 1979. The numbers on the left and right indicate

the CO2 concentration in parts per million. Again this indicates the current CO2 level

reaching up to and even beyond 400 parts per million.

While we do not intend to focus on all of the greenhouse gases in this lesson, it is

important to note that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. The most common greenhouse

gas is water vapor, followed by carbon dioxide , methane , nitrous oxide and fluorinated

gasses. Excluding water vapor, the combined sources of carbon dioxide, primarily from

fossil fuel use and land use change, make up about 77% of the global greenhouse gasses.

Because these other gasses trap different amounts of energy per molecule of gas, scientists

have normalized the data into something called Carbon Dioxide Equivalents, or CO2 equivalents.

This “equivalent” refers to the equivalent heating potential of the gas. This is also

known as radiative forcing or global warming potential. For instance, a single molecule

of methane will trap approximately 25 times the amount of energy as will a single molecule

of carbon dioxide. So methane has a CO2 equivalent of 25. Nitrous Oxide has a CO2 equivalent

of 298. This use of CO2 equivalents allows us to evaluate the impact of the gasses on

the environment - not just the amount of these gasses in the atmosphere.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are emitted by many sources and from every country. Together

these nations contribute a world total of 45 thousand million metric tons of CO2 Equivalents.

This graph shows percentages of greenhouse gas emissions by country in 2012. The United

States is currently the second highest emitter of these gases, contributing about 15% of

the world total. The highest emitting country is China. However, this same information can

be evaluated based on emissions per capita. This breakdown shows the US at about 19 tons

CO2e per year per person vs China at 7.5 tons CO2e per year per person.

Taking a closer look at the sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States alone by

economic sector,, we see that agriculture contributes 9 percent of total emissions in

the US. Total emissions in the US add up to approximately 6,673 million metric tons of

CO2 Equivalents. Agriculture’s 9% represents about 515 Million Metric Tons of that amount.

Looking at the agricultural sector itself, we can see that agricultural soil management

is the biggest source, it accounts for about 50% of total agricultural emissions. This

is followed by enteric fermentation at about 32% and manure management at 15%.

Now looking at the type of gases emitted, about 55% of the agricultural emissions are

from nitrous oxide, which is produced naturally through the the microbial process of nitrification

and denitrification of mineral nitrogen in the soil. The remaining 45% is from enteric

methane or from methane formed during the microbial breakdown of manure. Note that these

emissions are only the direct emissions of greenhouse gasses occurring on the farm. Other

emissions that would occur off farm - like emissions from fertilizer production or electricity

used on the farm are not included in these numbers.

We can also look more closely at emissions from animal species. In this chart you can

see the comparisons between beef cattle, dairy cattle, swine, poultry and all other livestock.

These differences are primarily a function of total animal numbers and the contribution

of enteric fermentation. Again these are direct emissions for animal production and do not

include emissions from the production of things like animal feed.

Overall if you look at all animals in the united states for example – the beef sector

would have the greatest impact on carbon footprint of this nation but that’s only because there

are so much more beef animals than dairy animals. We have 90 million beef animals and 9 million

dairy animals, so 10 times more beef animals.

However, a better way to think about greenhouse gas emissions is in terms of emissions per

unit of production. We can look at kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram of product

produced or product consumed. This evaluation includes not only direct emissions from the

farm, but also the emissions that occur after the products leave the farm. We will discuss

this further a little later in the video.This graph compares the greenhouse gas emissions

of several products on per kilogram basis. Of all the products, lamb is the highest emitter

per kilogram of product consumed, and beef is the second highest emitter at 27 kilograms

of CO2 equivalents per kilogram of beef consumed. Dairy is much lower in emissions, with 1.9

kilograms of CO2 equivalents per kilogram of milk consumed.

Before getting further into attributing emissions to different sectors of animal agriculture

or to different sources on the farm, we’ll look at the system used to measure and calculate

these emissions. There is a way to quantify greenhouse gasses.

This quantification method is called LCA, life cycle assessment. It has been done for

many years and it has been done by many different groups using different methodologies.

The Life Cycle Assessment, or LCA, is an accounting method that tracks all of the greenhouse gas

emissions produced by a given process, product or system. Often this is called a ‘cradle

to grave’ analysis, because it encompasses all of the emissions in the life cycle of

the process, product or system being analyzed. This includes anything from the extraction

of raw materials to the final disposal of the end product.

Animal scientists, engineers and others can further describe the scope and mission of

the LCA as it relates to animal agriculture.

Basically, the life cycle assessment looks at the entire life cycle associated with a

product. Let’s say if McDonalds or Walmart or some other chain were to ask me what’s

the carbon footprint or what’s the environmental footprint of a gallon of milk or a pound of

beef or a pound of chicken meat produced by your company.

Most producers would have no idea – but a life cycle assessment allows you to do just

that.

It allows you to look at the entire life cycle impact of that product. For example, the carbon

footprint of a gallon of milk includes not just enteric gasses that come out the front

end of the cow or methane or other gasses that come off the manure, it includes everything

– the herbicides and other chemicals applied to crops, the crops themselves, the soils

where the crops are grown, the animals, whether it is enteric gasses or manure gases, It includes

the cooling of the product, the transport of product and so on. Everything from cradle

to grave of this product. The true life cycle of this product.

Life Cycle Assessment is a systematic approach for primarily accounting for environmental

impacts. It is a systems scale analysis of any product or service really. In the dairy

industry. What it means is to divide the system into supply chain stages, typically. In each

of those stages we would have what we call unit processes that have material and energy

flows, inputs and outputs from other unit processes as well as, inputs or outputs from

nature. So emission to the soil, water, or air. And the process of LCA looks from cradle

to grave.

Dr. Thoma’s analysis in 2013 of greenhouse gas emissions from the production of milk

in the United States looked at the entire life cycle of the milk supply chain, starting

with the production of fertilizer to grow feed for cows through the consumption of milk

and disposal of milk packaging.

So if we are talking about just the dairy farm so that would be what we might consider

a gate to gate analysis and we would be interested in what happens just on the farm – that

would not be considered a full life cycle assessment. So, when we did the carbon footprint

for milk, we literally had to account for the coal, the transportation of the coal,

the construction of the power plant, the losses in the transmission lines to run the refrigeration

units at the retail. So all of that is accounted for.

This table from Thoma’s LCA shows the breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions across the milk

production supply chain. The colors represent the four different types of gas emitted by

each stage in the cycle, from feeding the cows, enteric fermentation, manure management

... all the way through the consumption of milk and disposal of packaging. The pie chart

further illustrates the percentage of each activity’s contribution to milk’s carbon

footprint.

Thoma’s analysis found that the CO2 equivalents produced by each kilogram of milk consumed

ranged from 1.77 to 2.4. This is about 17.6 pounds of CO2 equivalents per gallon of milk

consumed. 72 percent of those emissions occurred before

the milk left the farm gate. So from the extraction of coal, say, for the

electricity that may be used anywhere in the supply chain all the way to the emissions

associated with wastewater treatment for wasted milk that goes down the drain or the plastic

container that ends up in the landfill and may generate methane. So all of those emissions

across the entire supply chain are, we attempt to account for – tally them up then say

this is the impact.

Thoma applied the same system to an analysis of of greenhouse gas emissions from pork production.

This study took into account all of the activities in the pork supply chain that contribute to

emissions, from electricity and fuel to manure and waste, across all stages of production,

from the sow barn to the consumption of the pork products produced.

The LCA showed CO2 equivalents at an average of 8.8 to 11.6 kilograms of CO2 equivalents

per kilogram of pork, from production to consumption. This can also be calculated as 2.2 to 2.9

pounds of CO2 equivalents per 4 ounce serving of pork. Approximately 60% of the emissions

occurred before the product left the farm gate.

While the LCA is widely accepted as the most useful and accurate tool for estimating a

farm operation’s environmental impact, there is some interest in learning about farm specific

variables that might affect the results. Do differences in farm size, manure handling,

farm practices and technologies, soil conditions, regional climate systems and other farm factors

impact the emissions?

When we looked at this in various ways. . . . what wasn’t clear was – oh small farms were

not as good as big farms. We saw small farms that were down in the 0.8 0.9 range. We saw

large farms that were in the 1.7 1.8. Our conclusion from that was – it is not what

you are managing but how you are managing it so the implementation of best or beneficial

management practices and care of the animals, care in the ration formulation, all of these

things contribute to the better performing farms.

Dr. Thoma’s LCA for pork production found some effect from manure management. Farms

using anaerobic lagoons had slightly higher emissions than those using deep pit systems.

As noted in the Thoma report, a full LCA encompasses many variables, and with each variable there

are some assumptions to be made. How was the electricity used on the farm produced? Was

it coal based or nuclear? Was the corn grown for feed irrigated? If so, what energy source

powered the pumps? What was the animal diet? How many piglets per sow? How far away is

the slaughter plant? the consumer market? Was the meat cooked on a gas stove or electric

stove? How much of the final product was wasted - either in cooking or off the plate? All

of these variables must be assessed and generalized for this kind of study.

Scan level LCA’s are used to help pinpoint the main emission areas of a product or process.

For swine production, about 23% of the emissions are at the consumer level and 62% on the farm

level. These farm level emissions are split primarily between manure management and feed

production. This information helps the industry and individual producers target any emission

reduction strategies.

Helping farms perform better is the ultimate goal of the LCA. International standards have

been developed for conducting an LCA, which is important so that farmers, regulators and

others can get a clear picture of farm product emissions and identify what could be done

to reduce these emissions.

Once you know what the LCA impact is of your product then you really know where you are

– if you feel your too high then you can compare to what it would be if you were to

make changes – so that you can reduce.

But if you don’t know where you are, you have no idea whether changes would work. That

is why it is so critical to have good assessment methods, because they help you to know where

you are. The analogy is - you driving on the interstate – with a car that doesn’t have

an odometer. You have no clue how fast you are going but you see speed limits everywhere.

So you have no clue – am I going to fast? You know, what am I doing here? That’s where

the industry is right now. There are regulations, some of them very strict – for example in

California, yet the producers don’t know – am I complying am I not complying? Where

shall I go? Where is the goal pole? They don’t know, that’s a situation that is untenable.

And the public is exerting extensive pressure, the legislature is, regulatory agencies are.

There is nothing simple or straight forward about tracking greenhouse gas emissions and

global carbon cycling.

It is also clear that no process or product is entirely responsible for these emissions.

It is a combination of both natural and human activity that can be evaluated on a global

scale or on an individual product scale.

We are all aware of the value of agriculture as we look forward to the challenges of feeding

an every growing human population. However, we must also understand for our role in the

production of greenhouse gas emissions.

Thanks for learning about this important topic.