Climate Change: The New Fear Porn (Consolidated Thread)
May 15, 2024 18:15:21 GMT -5
Post by schwartzie on May 15, 2024 18:15:21 GMT -5
Cows Do NOT Cause ‘Climate Change,’ Top Study Confirms
Frank Bergman
May 15, 2024 - 12:54 pm
A bombshell new study has debunked the globalist narrative that emissions from cows are causing “climate change” while proving that cattle herds actually lower methane gas levels in the atmosphere.
In recent years, unelected foreign organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) have been demonizing the agriculture industry while calling for limits, or even bans, on the general public’s consumption of meat and dairy products.
The WEF, UN, and green agenda politicians argue that methane gasses from cattle, or “cow farts,” cause “global warming.”
This so-called “settled science” on alleged cattle emissions has led to increasing scrutiny of farmers around the world.
Global governments have responded by ramping up regulations for the agriculture industry in an effort to shut farms down.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 11.1% of emissions worldwide come from livestock production.
The FAO released a report last year urging Americans to eat less meat.
The UN argues that if people “fight climate change” by eating less meat, there will be less demand for cows.
If there are fewer cows, there will be fewer emissions, according to the UN.
However, new research from Alltech and Archbold suggests that these anti-cow claims from globalists are a hoax.
According to the new study, blaming cows for methane emissions ignores cattle’s relationship with the land.
The researchers found that, if grazing cattle were removed from pastures, emissions would actually go up, not down.
Besides trying to convince people to change their diets so we can get rid of more cows, other efforts seek to attack the emissions at the source.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $4.8 million grant to a London-based company to develop gas masks for cows.
The masks are a similar concept to carbon capture technology.
Other research is looking into food additives that go into the cows’ feed.
Bill Gates is also pushing for cows to be genetically “modified” to advance this agenda.
The additives seek to reduce the amount of methane emissions coming out of the animal.
In Ireland, dairy farmers were looking at possibly having to kill a lot of healthy cattle in order to comply with the WEF’s “Net Zero” emission reduction targets.
Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager for beef nutrition at Alltech, and Dr. Betsey Boughton, director of agroecology at Archbold, studied the impacts that cattle production has on the ecosystem on a wetlands pasture at Buck Island Ranch.
The ranch is about 150 miles northwest of Miami, Florida.
The researchers found that 19%-30% of methane emissions were from the cattle.
However, the rest of the methane was from the wetland soils.
If the cows are removed, it actually increases the amount of methane the wetland ecosystems give off, the research shows.
Globalists argue that methane is more potent in terms of “greenhouse warming” than carbon dioxide.
Yet, methane only lasts about 12 years.
So reducing methane can have a more immediate impact on warming than reducing carbon dioxide, according to the study.
Cattle emissions are often demonized in a similar way to fossil fuel emissions, the researchers note.
When we burn fossil fuels, the emissions go into the air. So eliminating a coal-fired power plant, for example, removes an emissions source, which produces a drop in emissions.
“There is a far more complex process in agriculture than it is in fossil fuel systems,” Holder said.
Ruminants, as they’re called, which includes cattle and sheep, have a large chamber in front of their stomach that acts as a fermentation factory.
Inside are bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and other microorganisms that help the animals digest grasses that humans can’t.
Methane is a natural waste product of that process.
In a series of videos on the Buck Island research, Holder explains that cattle take a lot of plants humans can’t eat.
The cows turn them into edible proteins humans can consume, increasing global food security.
WATCH:
The animals also consume a lot of food byproducts that can’t be used for human consumption.
For example, orange pulp used in orange juice production can be fed to livestock.
Those byproducts can be used in composting, but composting increases emissions five times more than feeding it to dairy cows, Holder said.
If byproducts are disposed of in landfills, the emissions go up 50 times over feeding it to dairy cows.
It is possible to put additives in the cows’ diet to inhibit that methane production, but at about 30% inhibition, Holder explained, you start to see negative effects.
There are some viable strategies to reduce emissions with additives, but that can only go so far.
Additionally, cattle are part of a carbon cycle.
If studies only model the emissions coming from the animal, the rest of the ecosystem is being ignored, Holder said.
The study notes that the ecosystem is absorbing carbon as a result of the animals being on the land.
The research alliance between Archbold and Alltech is increasing their understanding of this process, Dr. Holder explained.
“We weren’t looking at food production from an ecosystem standpoint before we came together with Betsey’s [Boughton] group,” Holder said.
“So it really has adjusted our perspective on how big we need to be looking at these systems in order to get this right.”
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, reducing the dead plant matter that falls into the soil and decomposes, which also produces greenhouse gasses.
“It’s a natural process,” Dr. Boughton said.
“We’re not saying that’s bad. Wetlands are good.
“That’s just a natural part of a wetland.”
At the Buck Island Ranch, Boughton and her team measured the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted on a pasture that had no grazing.
They compared it to pasture that had grazing.
What they found is that cattle grazing ends up as a carbon sink, meaning there’s a net reduction in the amount of emissions from that pasture compared to pastures with no cows.
“From my perspective, it’s more of a proof-of-concept type evaluation,” Holder said.
“We’re showing that we need to be looking at more than just emissions if we want to have a decent idea what’s happening in those ecosystems and what the effects are on global warming or food security or whatever it might be.”
There’s a lot of carbon locked up in the soil, he said.
The exact impact of removing grazing from those lands isn’t fully understood.
“It’s sort of an unintended consequence if we pull animals off the land and we don’t know what effect the next land use is going to have on those carbon stocks,” Holder said.
The livestock industry has long held that it’s being unfairly demonized in the effort to stop “climate change.”
The Alltech-Archbold research is showing that farmers are correct and the globalist narrative is nothing more than a hoax.
This news comes after a recent peer-reviewed study provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming.”
Dr. Jan Kubicki led a group of world-renowned Polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the Earth’s global temperatures.
However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.
Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide.
This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise.
link
Frank Bergman
May 15, 2024 - 12:54 pm
A bombshell new study has debunked the globalist narrative that emissions from cows are causing “climate change” while proving that cattle herds actually lower methane gas levels in the atmosphere.
In recent years, unelected foreign organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) have been demonizing the agriculture industry while calling for limits, or even bans, on the general public’s consumption of meat and dairy products.
The WEF, UN, and green agenda politicians argue that methane gasses from cattle, or “cow farts,” cause “global warming.”
This so-called “settled science” on alleged cattle emissions has led to increasing scrutiny of farmers around the world.
Global governments have responded by ramping up regulations for the agriculture industry in an effort to shut farms down.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 11.1% of emissions worldwide come from livestock production.
The FAO released a report last year urging Americans to eat less meat.
The UN argues that if people “fight climate change” by eating less meat, there will be less demand for cows.
If there are fewer cows, there will be fewer emissions, according to the UN.
However, new research from Alltech and Archbold suggests that these anti-cow claims from globalists are a hoax.
According to the new study, blaming cows for methane emissions ignores cattle’s relationship with the land.
The researchers found that, if grazing cattle were removed from pastures, emissions would actually go up, not down.
Besides trying to convince people to change their diets so we can get rid of more cows, other efforts seek to attack the emissions at the source.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $4.8 million grant to a London-based company to develop gas masks for cows.
The masks are a similar concept to carbon capture technology.
Other research is looking into food additives that go into the cows’ feed.
Bill Gates is also pushing for cows to be genetically “modified” to advance this agenda.
The additives seek to reduce the amount of methane emissions coming out of the animal.
In Ireland, dairy farmers were looking at possibly having to kill a lot of healthy cattle in order to comply with the WEF’s “Net Zero” emission reduction targets.
Dr. Vaughn Holder, research project manager for beef nutrition at Alltech, and Dr. Betsey Boughton, director of agroecology at Archbold, studied the impacts that cattle production has on the ecosystem on a wetlands pasture at Buck Island Ranch.
The ranch is about 150 miles northwest of Miami, Florida.
The researchers found that 19%-30% of methane emissions were from the cattle.
However, the rest of the methane was from the wetland soils.
If the cows are removed, it actually increases the amount of methane the wetland ecosystems give off, the research shows.
Globalists argue that methane is more potent in terms of “greenhouse warming” than carbon dioxide.
Yet, methane only lasts about 12 years.
So reducing methane can have a more immediate impact on warming than reducing carbon dioxide, according to the study.
Cattle emissions are often demonized in a similar way to fossil fuel emissions, the researchers note.
When we burn fossil fuels, the emissions go into the air. So eliminating a coal-fired power plant, for example, removes an emissions source, which produces a drop in emissions.
“There is a far more complex process in agriculture than it is in fossil fuel systems,” Holder said.
Ruminants, as they’re called, which includes cattle and sheep, have a large chamber in front of their stomach that acts as a fermentation factory.
Inside are bacteria, yeasts, fungi, and other microorganisms that help the animals digest grasses that humans can’t.
Methane is a natural waste product of that process.
In a series of videos on the Buck Island research, Holder explains that cattle take a lot of plants humans can’t eat.
The cows turn them into edible proteins humans can consume, increasing global food security.
WATCH:
The animals also consume a lot of food byproducts that can’t be used for human consumption.
For example, orange pulp used in orange juice production can be fed to livestock.
Those byproducts can be used in composting, but composting increases emissions five times more than feeding it to dairy cows, Holder said.
If byproducts are disposed of in landfills, the emissions go up 50 times over feeding it to dairy cows.
It is possible to put additives in the cows’ diet to inhibit that methane production, but at about 30% inhibition, Holder explained, you start to see negative effects.
There are some viable strategies to reduce emissions with additives, but that can only go so far.
Additionally, cattle are part of a carbon cycle.
If studies only model the emissions coming from the animal, the rest of the ecosystem is being ignored, Holder said.
The study notes that the ecosystem is absorbing carbon as a result of the animals being on the land.
The research alliance between Archbold and Alltech is increasing their understanding of this process, Dr. Holder explained.
“We weren’t looking at food production from an ecosystem standpoint before we came together with Betsey’s [Boughton] group,” Holder said.
“So it really has adjusted our perspective on how big we need to be looking at these systems in order to get this right.”
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, reducing the dead plant matter that falls into the soil and decomposes, which also produces greenhouse gasses.
“It’s a natural process,” Dr. Boughton said.
“We’re not saying that’s bad. Wetlands are good.
“That’s just a natural part of a wetland.”
At the Buck Island Ranch, Boughton and her team measured the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted on a pasture that had no grazing.
They compared it to pasture that had grazing.
What they found is that cattle grazing ends up as a carbon sink, meaning there’s a net reduction in the amount of emissions from that pasture compared to pastures with no cows.
“From my perspective, it’s more of a proof-of-concept type evaluation,” Holder said.
“We’re showing that we need to be looking at more than just emissions if we want to have a decent idea what’s happening in those ecosystems and what the effects are on global warming or food security or whatever it might be.”
There’s a lot of carbon locked up in the soil, he said.
The exact impact of removing grazing from those lands isn’t fully understood.
“It’s sort of an unintended consequence if we pull animals off the land and we don’t know what effect the next land use is going to have on those carbon stocks,” Holder said.
The livestock industry has long held that it’s being unfairly demonized in the effort to stop “climate change.”
The Alltech-Archbold research is showing that farmers are correct and the globalist narrative is nothing more than a hoax.
This news comes after a recent peer-reviewed study provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming.”
Dr. Jan Kubicki led a group of world-renowned Polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the Earth’s global temperatures.
However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.
Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide.
This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise.
link
