Weathering the Storm: Climate Smart Sheep Farming by Barbara Johnstone Grimmer, P. Ag. Sheep Canada Magazine Vol. 31 No. 1

http://www.sheepcanada.com/sheep-canada-spring-2016/

         

         The summer of 2015 was the driest on record here, affecting our ability to bring in a decent hay crop and making it tough for the sheep to get enough grass.  Although dry seasons can happen, there is a growing consensus that we are in the midst of climate change, and unfortunately agriculture is viewed as both a villain and a victim of this shift in weather conditions.  Ranchers and farmers have always worked around changes in the weather, but the climate trends we are experiencing present new challenges and opportunities.  Increases in extreme and highly variable weather events such as droughts and floods, rising annual temperatures, and increasing winter precipitation over most of Canada, are expected to be the new normal. 

So what is behind our changing weather patterns? Climate change has been linked to the rise in “greenhouse gasses” carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and methane (CH₄), trapping the heat from the sun. These gasses are linked to the use of fossil fuels and human activities, such as agriculture.  Besides the natural atmospheric conditions that help keep our planet comfortable, there is good scientific agreement that human activities have tipped the scale towards increasing levels of greenhouse gasses and their effects on the warming of the earth.

 To limit the global increase in warming and the ongoing impacts to agriculture requires a global effort.  Canada intends to reduce emissions across the economy by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.  “Climate-friendly” ranching and farming could help in this effort by reducing, removing or replacing greenhouse (GHG) emissions.   To take it a step further, farming could be “climate-smart” by improving production efficiencies and profitability, while at the same time adapting to climate change and reducing GHG.

Where do the agricultural GHG emissions come from?  Carbon dioxide can come from on-farm energy and machinery use, intensive tillage and overgrazing.  Methane primarily comes from the digestive processes of ruminants (enteric fermentation), as well as manure storage.  Nitrous oxide can come from fertilizers, manure applications to soil, nitrogen-fixing crops, and waterlogged soils.  These gases are found naturally in the atmosphere, but their levels rise significantly with human activities such as agriculture.  Carbon dioxide is the predominant greenhouse gas, but methane and nitrous oxide are more potent, at 25 and 298 times (respectively) the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. 

What can we expect to happen? Our northern latitude will give us some advantages over warmer regions.  There are indications that up until 2060, Canadian prairie grazing capacity will remain productive, with an increase in warm-season grasses. Earlier seeding dates, possibly improved soil moisture levels, warmer summers and earlier spring warming are predicted in most regions.  Although growing seasons will be extended, the hotter summers will shorten the season for cool season crops and grasses.    Extremes such as heat waves are expected to decrease productivity as evapotranspiration increases and soils become increasingly dry. The possibility of less snow, receding lakes, lower stream flows and retreating glaciers will have their effects.

Increased CO₂ levels could result in more plant growth, but could also negatively impact plant distribution and type, forage quality and quantity.  Rising CO₂ levels could favour weed growth and the general warming trend could expand the range of weeds, forbs and invasive species. 

Severe droughts are expected for many of the ranching ecoregions.  Forest fires are expected to increase with increased temperatures, summer droughts and insect infestations.

Coastal areas are likely to experience wetter winters, and with the warmer weather we will probably see greater problems with parasites. 

Besides changes to growing conditions and crops, livestock directly impacted by temperature extremes and heat stress can have reduced appetites, impaired reproduction, increases in stress hormones, decreases in thyroid hormones, water deprivation, nutrient imbalances and nutrient deficiencies.  Some of these effects arise from seeking shade during the heat of the day which reduces grazing time, and having insufficient water of quantity or quality necessary.  These changes reduce productivity and increase morbidity and mortality of livestock. 

Increased summer temperatures can also influence meat quality of livestock, with dehydration, weight loss, altered muscle metabolism and stress, especially during transport and handling to the abattoir or auction mart. 

Diseases such as Anthrax, haemonchosis, fascioliasis and Bluetongue are influenced by climate through changes in their range of distribution, timing of outbreaks or intensity of outbreaks. 

So what can we do? Adaptation to climate change can be short-term in reaction to observed changes, and long-term by planning for anticipated changes in climate.  Each farm will need to determine its own vulnerabilities and opportunities.  

Adaptation measures can include securing and enhancing water supplies, installing drainage and irrigation, diversifying the farm, altering planting and harvest dates or breeding and lambing times, improving livestock shelters and infrastructure.

Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce the net amount of heat trapping greenhouse gases (GHG) released into the atmosphere.  Mitigation strategies are frequently linked to adaptive strategies i.e. planting trees for shade and shelterbelts for the comfort of the livestock, also sequesters carbon and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.  Strategies include:

·         Improving whole-farm productivity and resource efficiency

·         Maintaining optimal animal health and productivity

·         Sequestering carbon in trees, grass and soils

·         Minimizing leakages of GHG emissions through efficient and minimal fertilizer and manure applications and using nutrient management planning

·         Reducing soil disturbances, tillage, summer fallow and overgrazing

·         Exploring carbon-replacing renewable energy technologies (wind, water, solar, biofuels)

To help with mitigation, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada has produced a whole-farm modelling program that estimates greenhouse gas emissions for farmers at no cost.  The “Holos” program allows the producer to test different farm scenarios to aid in reducing GHG emissions and it is continually being updated.

Each operation should conduct a climate audit.  The climate audit identifies each climate trend (precipitation, temperature, extremes) and determines the impact of each trend on farm inputs, animal production, logistics and farm exports.  Another useful activity would be to conduct an energy-use audit which could reduce energy use, and CO₂ emissions.  An energy audit combined with a climate audit may reveal opportunities for replacement of greenhouse gas emissions with renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, micro-hydro or biofuel production.  This could provide a cost savings, while also providing a new income stream through the sale of surplus energy and mitigating climate change. 

Producers should have an emergency drought plan.  This can include improving forage resources, modifying grazing strategy, improving water resources and/or diversifying.  If climate conditions lead to reduced forage resources over extended times, de-stocking might be necessary. 

            Pasture management strategies can also improve feed efficiency and reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions by the incorporation of digestible grass and legume mixes.  The legumes fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, increasing crude protein of the grass mix and replacing some or all of the nitrogen requirement for grass growth.  This reduces the amount of fertilizer required, avoiding some greenhouse gas emissions.  Extended grazing seasons due to climate change, coupled with grazing systems like management intensive grazing that manage the grass and soil first, could provide some opportunities for improvements to productivity.  This could result in a lower requirement for stored winter feed, but unpredictability would require planning for the worst case scenario, like extended droughts or crop failures.

The number of lambs reared per ewe, lamb growth rates, percentage of bred ewes, and level of nutrition are all linked to improved resource efficiency (and reduced emissions) and increased productivity. Flock health management, good biosecurity measures and disease surveillance are especially important with climate change, based on the northern migration of disease vectors and the adaptability of disease-causing organisms.  Healthy stock is more productive and more feed efficient.

            Managing water resources is important due to the increased possibility of elevated temperatures heat waves during the growing season, increasing water demand while impacting supply.  Both quantity and quality of water are important for flock health and welfare.  Precipitation may be reduced in the growing season, critical for pasture and rangelands that are rain fed and not irrigated and increasing the incidence of droughts.  An adaptive strategy to limited water resources may be to reduce stocking density, for herd health and welfare and to reduce overgrazing and soil erosion.

            If sufficient feed has been stockpiled, and water resources are adequate for livestock needs, one strategy may be to establish “drought pens or paddocks”, supplementing with grain if possible.  This can be done through early weaning of lambs, feedlot feeding them until market size.  Adult stock may be fed separately to avoid overgrazing.  Australians often implement this strategy, and I found it to be very effective last summer.

            Canada has the advantage of having a climate known for its cold, ice and snow.  For some, a bit of warming would be a welcome change and give us more of an advantage globally.  At this point, the level of uncertainty and the projected extreme weather events for the future make it hard to be totally confident in that view.  Perhaps “hope for the best and plan for worst” might be some good advice for the future.

 Appendix 1. Sheep Farm, Canada

Climate trends	Farm inputs	Animal production	Logistics	Exports
PRECIPITATION More precipitation in winter months, Drier in summer	Hay crop would be affected unless there is irrigation , perhaps grain also since it is usually grown without irrigation in prairies; higher prices, may need to plant different crops	Production may be affected if there isn’t shelter for winter rain or summer sun, warm rain can exacerbate parasite problems in pasture systems, foot problems	May not get on field in spring early enough if still wet, may have trouble harvesting if weather is unstable, mud and rain makes it difficult to handle livestock, transport.  Drought can impact grazing operations, reduce carrying capacity of the land	May experience price crash if animals are shipped at same time to save feed, price may also rise in long drought with less supply, but costs will be higher too
TEMPERATURE Increasing temperatures year round, especially hotter in summer months, warm winter	Add to reduced crop yield in non-irrigated areas, may need to plant different crops Higher prices	Heat stress impacting reproduction, feed intake, growth and production,   insect and parasites may over-winter and no longer have winter-kill effect, could have a hot summer kill effect on parasites (positive),  insects carrying disease could move north	Hot weather can’t ship livestock, may need to delay breeding later if too hot,  may need to feed animals if grass dries up and to prevent overgrazing, may need to ship livestock to save grass and hay for rest of year, hard to plan, shipping planned in advance but animals might not be ready or it may be too hot to ship	Hard to ship at peak of the market sometimes if there are heat waves,  may not sell as much hay if saving for own stock
EXTREMES More heat waves in summer, winter storms with wind and rain, perhaps heavy snow storms.	Higher feed costs Electrical disruptions, power outages, shelter requirement for livestock might be adjusted, generators needed	Less production in both low and high extremes, very hard on farmers and staff to work in extreme weather events	Stressful on stock, farmers and employees.  Hard to plan.  Focus on preparation for the worst,	Hard to predict best time to sell in advance or how to time the market

 Resources:

1.       Australian Wool Innovation (2013) Managing sheep in drought lots: a best practice guide https://www.wool.com/globalassets/start/on-farm-research-and-development/sheep-health-welfare-and-productivity/sheep-nutrition/awi-drought-resources/gd0458_managing-sheep-in-droughtlots.pdf

2.       Holos http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/science-publications-and-resources/holos/?id=1349181297838

3.       USDA (2015) Animal Agriculture in a Changing Climate  http://animalagclimatechange.org

The Rural Blog: Agricultural scientists link global warming to human activity

The Rural Blog: Agricultural scientists link global warming to hum...: "Three allied agricultural-science groups, with a total of more than 10,000 members, say the Earth is warming, and partly because of human activity.  ...In other words, they believe in anthropogenic climate change.

The American Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America and the Soil Science Society of America said “A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring,” and “Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

The groups warn that climate change could have big impacts on agriculture and “ecosystem services” such as pollination, erosion control and natural pest management. "In fact, the groups say, changes in temperature have already begun to affect crops, water availability, and pests in some areas," the Washington newsletter Agri-Pulse reports."

The Rural Blog had an interesting post about the various agricultural scientists who are observing the climate changes that are affecting agriculture, whether it be by changes in pests, water or temperature.  Another point in the blog brought home the message about the central role of humans through time.

Dr. Erle Ellis, an American ecologist,  recognizes that humans are part of the ecology, and we are now in an age of humans as driving forces in a new geological era, called the Anthropocene Era.   Ellis studies managed landscapes, especially in China.

The classical view of ecology looks at humans as distinct from the natural world;  the ecology of a place results in a disturbed degraded ecosystem, not a proper ecosystem when humans are put into it.

    
Ellis says this is a fallacy. because a lot of places are disturbed by humans - even in the past - and the land has been disturbed almost everywhere in the planet.

The Gulf Islands have been shaped by First Nations and early settlers, as well as logging in the early and mid 20th century, and development to this very day.  Invasive species have taken a strong foothold, farms are nestled into the valleys that once were thick with trees.  Waves from the ferries buffet the shorelines several times a day.  Cellphone towers, fire suppression practices, etc. are signs of human habitation.

In the past forty years development has grown in the Gulf Islands and the impact of mankind has grown along with it, despite the establishment of a local land use planning government called The Islands Trust.  The mandate of the Islands Trust, to "preserve and protect", has emphasized ecological protection in the hopes of preserving and protecting the fragile and fractured ecology of the place.  Many have argued that the model being forced on the human population by Islands Trust is irrational - people are part of the ecology, the protected spaces are not true and pure ecosystems.

Dr. Ellis says everything around us has been modified - and nature is created by us, and is to be nurtured by us.

It would seem that the ecologists that have been guiding the Trust have a classical view of ecology, not one that recognizes the ongoing role of humans in shaping their landscapes.  Instead, there is a grudging acceptance that people live here and must be dealt with, but must also do their part in preserving the ecology here.  It could be argued that this narrow classical view should be balanced with an acceptance of ecological studies that accept the role of humans in shaping their environment.

We are part of the ecology, something most residents of the Gulf Islands recognize. Everything we do has an impact.  Even trying to manage the ecology for the better is really a "best guess" approach since there are many factors involved, most outside of our control.

 As Ellis says, nature is to be nurtured by us, it is changed by us and is created by us.  Perhaps the Islands Trust should listen to the perspectives of those who believe that people are part of the ecology and do have a say in the way their ecology is shaped.  Now these people have science to back them up.

In Brazil: Paying to Let the Trees Stand (from the New York Times, 2009)

NY Times: In Brazil, paying to let the trees stand

---

August 22, 2009

By Degrees

In Brazil, Paying Farmers to Let the Trees Stand

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

QUERENCIA, Brazil — José Marcolini, a farmer here, has a permit from the Brazilian government to raze 12,500 acres of rain forest this year to create highly profitable new soy fields.
But he says he is struggling with his conscience. A Brazilian environmental group is offering him a yearly cash payment to leave his forest standing to help combat climate change.
Mr. Marcolini says he cares about the environment. But he also has a family to feed, and he is dubious that the group’s initial offer in the negotiation — $12 per acre, per year — is enough for him to accept.
“For me to resist the pressure, surrounded by soybeans, I’ll have to be paid — a lot,” said Mr. Marcolini, 53, noting that cleared farmland here in the state of Mato Grosso sells for up to $1,300 an acre.
Mato Grosso means thick forests, and the name was once apt. But today, this Brazilian state is a global epicenter of deforestation. Driven by profits derived from fertile soil, the region’s dense forests have been aggressively cleared over the past decade, and Mato Grasso is now Brazil’s leading producer of soy, corn and cattle, exported across the globe by multinational companies.
Deforestation, a critical contributor to climate change, effectively accounts for 20 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions and 70 percent of the emissions in Brazil. Halting new deforestation, experts say, is as powerful a way to combat warming as closing the world’s coal plants.
But until now, there has been no financial reward for keeping forest standing. Which is why a growing number of scientists, politicians and environmentalists argue that cash payments — like that offered to Mr. Marcolini — are the only way to end tropical forest destruction and provide a game-changing strategy in efforts to limit global warming.
Unlike high-tech solutions like capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide or making “green” fuel from algae, preserving a forest yields a strikingly simple environmental payback: a landowner reduces his property’s emissions to zero.
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change, said that deforestation “absolutely” needed to be addressed by a new international climate agreement being negotiated this year. “But people cut down trees because there is an economic rationale for doing it, and you need to provide them with a financial alternative,” he said.
Both the most recent draft of the agreement and the climate bill passed by the House in late June in the United States include plans for rich countries and companies to pay the poor to preserve their forests.
The payment strategies may include direct payments to landowners to keep forests standing, as well as indirect subsidies, like higher prices for beef and soy that are produced without resorting to clear-cutting. Deforestation creates carbon emissions through fires and machinery that are used to fell trees, and it also destroys the plant life that helps absorb carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories around the globe.
But getting the cash incentives right is a complex and uncharted business. In much of the developing world, including here, deforestation has been tied to economic progress. Pedro Alves Guimarães, 73, a weathered man sitting at the edge of the region’s River of the Dead, came to Mato Grosso in 1964 in search of free land, pushing into the jungle until he found a site and built a hut as a base for raising cattle. While he regrets the loss of the forest, he has welcomed amenities like the school built a few years ago that his grandchildren attend, or the electricity put in last year that allowed him to buy his first freezer.
Also, environmental groups caution that, designed poorly, programs to pay for forest preservation could merely serve as a cash cow for the very people who are destroying them. For example, one proposed version of the new United Nations plan would allow plantations of trees, like palms grown for palm oil, to count as forest, even though tree plantations do not have nearly the carbon absorption potential of genuine forest and are far less diverse in plant and animal life.
“There is the capacity to get a very perverse outcome,” said Sean Cadman, a spokesman for the Wilderness Society of Australia.
Global as well as local economic forces are driving deforestation — Brazil and Indonesia lead the world in the extent of their rain forests lost each year. The forests are felled to help feed the world’s growing population and meet its growing appetite for meat. Much of Brazil’s soy is bought by American-based companies like Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland and used to feed cows as far away as Europe and China. In Indonesia, rain forests are felled to plant palms for the palm oil, which is a component of biofuels.
Brazil has tried to balance development and conservation.
Last year, with a grant from Norway that could bring the country $1 billion, it created an Amazon Fund to help communities maintain their forest. National laws stipulate that 80 percent of every tract in the upper Amazon — and 50 percent in more developed regions — must remain forested, but it is a vast territory with little law enforcement. Soy exporters officially have a moratorium on using product from newly deforested land.
Here in Mato Grasso, 700 square miles of rain forest was stripped in the last five months of 2007 alone, according to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, which tracks vanishing forests.
“With so much money to be made, there are no laws that will keep forest standing,” John Carter, a rancher who settled here 15 years ago, said as he flew his Cessna over the denuded land one day this summer.
Until very recently, developing the Amazon was the priority, and some settlers feel betrayed by the new stigma surrounding deforestation. Much as in the 19th-century American West, the Brazilian government encouraged settlement through homesteaders’ benefits like cheap land and housing subsidies, many of which still exist today.
“It was revolting and sad when the world said that deforestation was bad — we were told to come here and that we had to tear it down,” said Mato Grosso’s secretary of agriculture, Neldo Egon Weirich, 56, who moved here in 1978 and noted that to be eligible for loans to buy tractors and seed, a farmer had to clear 80 percent of his land.
He is proud to have turned Mato Grosso from a malarial zone into an agricultural powerhouse. “Mato Grosso is under a microscope — we know we have to do something,” Mr. Weirich said. “But we can’t just stop production.”
Even today, settlers around the globe are buying or claiming cheap “useless” forest and transforming it into farmland.
Clearing away the trees is often the best way to declare and ensure ownership. Land that Mr. Carter has intentionally left forested for its environmental benefit has been intermittently overtaken by squatters — a common problem here. In parts of Southeast Asia, early experiments in paying landowners for preserving forest have been hampered because it is often unclear who owns, or controls, property.
There are various ideas about how to rein in deforestation.
Mr. Carter has started a landowners’ environmental group, called Aliança da Terra, whose members agree to have their properties surveyed for good environmental practices and their forests tracked by satellite by scientists at the Amazon Institute for Environmental Research (IPAM), ensuring that they are not cultivating newly cleared land. Mr. Carter is currently negotiating with companies like McDonalds to purchase only from farms that have been certified.
The United Nations program, called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation or REDD, will reward countries that preserve forests with carbon credits that can be sold and turned into cash for forest owners through the global carbon market. The United Nations already gives such credits for cleaning factories and planting trees. Carbon credits are bought by companies or countries that have exceeded their emissions limits, as a way to balance their emissions budget.
Daniel Nepstad, a scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center, has mapped out large areas of the Amazon “pixel by pixel” to determine the land value if it was converted to raise cattle or grow soy, to help determine how much landowners should be paid to conserve forest. Most experts feel that landowners will accept lower prices as they realize the benefits of saving forest, like conserving water and burnishing their image with buyers.
Mr. Weirich, the agriculture secretary, said he was skeptical about that. But he, too, senses that there may for the first time be money in forest preservation and has recently decided to be certified by Aliança da Terra.
“We want to adopt practices that will put us ahead in the market,” he said.
The initial offer Mr. Marcolini has from the environmental group is perhaps not enough to save the forest here. But, he said, if his land was in a more remote part of the Amazon, with less farming potential, “I’d take that offer and run with it.”

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.

Home

• World
• U.S.
• N.Y. / Region
• Business
• Technology
• Science
• Health
• Sports
• Opinion
• Arts
• Style
• Travel
• Jobs
• Real Estate
• Automobiles
• Back to Top

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service
• Search
• Corrections
• RSS
• First Look
• Help
• Contact Us
• Work for Us
• Site Map

Grass-Fed Cows Emit Less Methane - Sustainable Farming - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

Grass-Fed Cows Emit Less Methane - Sustainable Farming - MOTHER EARTH NEWS

Catalyst: Agrichar – A solution to global warming? - ABC TV Science

Catalyst: Agrichar – A solution to global warming? - ABC TV Science

Steven Earle Peak Oil and Food Supply Video

Steven Earle Peak Oil and Food Supply Video

Are cows really the problem? Climate change and farming.

“It’s the fastest way to sequester carbon, collect solar energy, and rebuild soil. Grazing is truly amazing.” Joel Salatin, Virginia farmer and author

I tried to ignore the headlines a few years ago about cows contributing more to global warming than cars – and waited for the smoke to clear and the data to settle itself out. It didn’t make intuitive sense, and when I was forwarded an email last week that insisted Gulf Island farms would need to get rid of cows and sheep and our pastoral life to combat climate change, that hit a little too close to home. The impacts attributed to livestock are based on incomplete information, since it is often forgotten that we are dealing with a system of interrelated biological processes. Efforts to stop global warming have been focused almost entirely on reducing emissions caused by man, not in taking existing carbon out of the atmosphere (a process known as carbon sequestration). Scientists are trying to unscramble the omelette and get the whole picture, while policy makers point fingers, but it is a race against time.

According to BC’s 2007 GHG (greenhouse gas) Emissions Inventory, transportation is the biggest emitter in our province at 36%. Agriculture is down at 3.4%, with 1% attributed to enteric fermentation by ruminants (cows mostly), and 0.5% to manure management. The world picture is different, with 10-14% of human-caused GHG from agriculture. But that is just the emissions, and the carbon cycle is just that – a cycle. Our forests, oceans and grasslands are carbon sinks, acting to absorb carbon. Although not included in most of the carbon-counting schemes, scientists have long been aware of grassland’s ability to capture or “sequester” carbon. The FAO made a presentation to COP15 requesting the inclusion of grasslands in carbon accounting, especially notable since 70% of the world’s agricultural lands are pasture and grassland. Grass takes in carbon dioxide from the air, converting it to sugars by photosynthesis. Some of the resulting carbon compounds are transferred to the roots and released into the soil through the normal cycles of growth and decay. Cows on a grass diet produce more methane than those fed on cereal grains, but grasslands more than compensate. Some pasture plants, such as bird’s-foot trefoil, are known to reduce methane emissions. There are soil bacteria that oxidize methane as well. .The grass takes in carbon from the atmosphere; the animals trample the grass into the soil, where the carbon is absorbed; new grass sprouts and the process is repeated over and over again, absorbing more and more carbon. This management system has been attributed to African game rancher Allan Savory, who observed that soil is healthiest and best able to absorb carbon when grasslands are managed in a way similar to the natural cycles created by huge herds of hoofed animals feeding on and trampling grasses for short periods and then moving elsewhere to avoid predators. Savory calls his method “Holistic Management”, and it is successfully practised by many ranchers in BC, and in other regions of the planet.

Converting croplands to pasture, which reduces erosion, effectively sequesters significant amounts of carbon. Grazing reduces the need for the fertilizers and fuel used by farm machinery in crop cultivation. Compared to cropland, perennial pastures used for grazing can decrease soil erosion by 80 percent and markedly improve water quality. According to the UN, “there is growing evidence that both cattle ranching and pastoralism can have positive impacts on biodiversity”. By improving our grasslands, improving our soils and our agricultural methods, and replenishing our forests we can do much to increase the uptake of excess atmospheric greenhouse gases, while reducing their emissions.

The idea of soil sequestration is still under the radar, according to Soil Science Professor Chuck Rice of Kansas State University, a member of the IPCC panel who directs a joint project of nine American universities and the U.S. Department of Energy studying the potential for reducing greenhouse gases through agricultural practices. Because there is more carbon stored in the soil than in the atmosphere, improvements in managing the carbon in the soil would make big differences in the atmosphere. By adopting a wide range of carbon sequestration strategies, ranging from planting more trees to cultivating crops using sustainable and no-till agriculture (which minimizes plowing) to raising animals on grasslands instead of feedlots—more problems than climate change could be solved.

Dr. Jan Coulter, a scientist and farmer in Scotland, was curious about her farm’s carbon footprint, and produced software for farmers to calculate their own carbon footprint, and it is available free online as Cplan. Other countries have produced software, and the Canadian version – Holos – is currently being tested by various associations and farmers across Canada. I tried out Holos, putting in our farm’s data and Stats Canada data from the 2006 Census on Agriculture, specifically for the southern outer Gulf Islands (Mayne, Galiano, Pender, Saturna and their accessory islands). In the southern outer Gulf Islands, we had 89 farms according to the 2006 census – almost 3000 ha attributed to farming; about 1300 ha of that pasture, 250 ha hay, 365 ha crop, and 1055 ha forest. We had 454 cattle and calves, 1447 sheep, 89 goats, 2526 poultry. Even without counting the sequestering effect of the farms’ forests, the effect of livestock was negated by the carbon uptake of the land. Not only can our farmers relax at the fact that we are balanced and carbon neutral, but there is room to use our farms in sequestering carbon and perhaps provide some solutions for the future. The Holos program gives suggestions on what changes could be made on your farm to improve carbon storage and reduce emissions. Improvements of 40-80% can be achieved by planting trees, reducing animal stocking rates and reducing nitrogen fertilizer. Smaller improvements (20-40%) can be achieved by improving the diet of livestock, improving nitrogen efficiency, manure management and changing the farm’s cultivation practices. Farmer testimonies have been positive – the programs are simple to use, and give the farmer a concrete value for his farm’s emissions and sinks, suggestions to improve the net result that are both reasonable but also profitable in the long run. Farmers can make slight changes using the program and model “what if” situations for their own farm. Further improvements to these programs are ongoing.

Viewing the world holistically will allow us to see that the best way to fix climate change is to involve the earth in the solution. The best way to unscramble the omelette is to feed it back to the hen, and let her lay a new egg. We certainly can’t do it alone.

“If farmers are empowered by knowing and understanding how their own carbon footprint is calculated they will be in a better position to influence policy and implement change without it being imposed upon them.”

Dr. Jan Coulter, developer of Cplan
BJG

Rising Carbon emissions threaten crop yields and food security

Crop yields are under threat from rising carbon dioxide emissions with climate change, according to new scientific research. In a new study published in Science on wheat and the mustard plant Arabidopsis at the University of California at Davis, scientists found that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide interferes with plants’ ability to convert nitrate into protein resulting in lower nutritional yield.
Related: Koalas face starvation, extinction due to climate change

This has implications for global food production, food nutritional quality and food security. It effects not only humans but the animal ecosystems dependant on current plant physiologies.

"Our findings suggest that scientists cannot examine the response of crops to global climate change simply in terms of rising carbon dioxide levels or higher temperatures,” said lead author Arnold Bloom, a professor in UC Davis’ Department of Plant Sciences.

“Instead, we must consider shifts in plant nitrogen use that will alter food quality and even pest control, as lower protein levels in plants will force both people and pests to consume more plant material to meet their nutritional requirements," Bloom said.

As climate change intensifies, careful management of nitrogen fertilization by farmers will become critical to reduce losses in crop productivity and quality, according to the research.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased by 39 percent since 1800, and on current projections will increase by an additional 40 to 140 percent by the end of the century.

Plants require nitrogen, mostly in the form of nitrates in the soil, to survive and grow. Research has shown that when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase by 50 percent, the nitrogen status of plants declines significantly.

“This indicates that as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise and nitrate assimilation in plant tissues diminishes, crops will become depleted in organic nitrogen compounds, including protein, and food quality will suffer,” Bloom said. “Increasing nitrogen fertilization might compensate for slower nitrate assimilation rates, but this might not be economically or environmentally feasible.”

"One fear is insect outbreaks will become more extensive, because the insects will have to eat more to meet nutritional needs." Arnold Bloom told the ABC. (Listen to a podcast interview with Arnold Bloom)

As plants absorb more carbon dioxide, levels of plant nutrition will go down and for some toxin levels will go up. So crops will have less nutritional yield which will mean humans or other animals will need to eat more to get the same level of nutrition. Plants will put more energy into defensive systems such as phenols or cyanide compounds.

Dr Ros Gleadow told a recent ABC Catalyst program "Leaves of plants grown at elevated carbon dioxide have a lot less protein. Wheat, barley, rice, all of those in probably only 50 to 60 years time will have 15 to 20% less protein in them than they do now." she said, "In about 50 years time or even 100 years time eucalyptus leaves will have trouble supporting arboreal herbivores like koalas because the phenolic concentration will be too high and the protein level too low."

Bad news for the Koala, one of Australia's iconic creatures, facing extinction from climate change.

Cassava is one of the world's staple food crops because of the plant's drought tolerance. However increased CO2 will stimulate more cyanogen compounds in the plant. Dr Ros Gleadow told Catalyst "We grew cassava at three different concentrations of carbon dioxide. Today's air, one and a half times the amount of carbon dioxide and twice the carbon dioxide of today. And we found that cyanogen concentration in the leaves increased."

Cyanide poisoning from Cassava produces a serious paralytic disease known as Konza, which was first diagnosed in 1981 in Mozambique. Simple methods have been devised to treat the cassava root to allow enzymes to eliminate some of the cyanide as hydrogen cyanide gas, making the tuber relatively safe to eat after processing.

Dr Ros Gleadow outlined that in high carbon dioxide environment the yield from the tuber is also reduced, "The plants actually made less tubers when we grew them at elevated carbon dioxide." she said, "It is all very highly balanced in plants, the ratio of the proteins and the toxins. When you grow plants at elevated carbon dioxide the plants are more efficient so they can grow really well. And at the same time allocate more of their resources to defence."

While carbon dioxide is increasing, there will also be effects from changes in rainfall and water, changes in temperature, which will effect crops. Corn, soybeans and cotton are the largest three crops by production value in the US which will be affected by extreme heat. Above a certain threhold - 29 degrees - yields drop off rapidly and the effects have been described as 'damaging large' by a report by Agricultural Economists published in August in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

We appear to be in for a period of declining crop yield as well as nutritional yield due to climate change which will challenge feeding the world's still growing population.

Background
New Scientist, May 16, 2007 - Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Stanford University Media Release, Dec 5, 2002 - Climate change surprise: High carbon dioxide levels can retard plant growth, study reveals
Sources
University of California at Davis Media Release, May 13, 2010 - Rising CO2 levels threaten crops and food quality
Catalyst science program, ABC Television, May 6, 2010 - Toxic Crops
Climate IMC, Nov 22, 2009 - USA: Climate Change likely to severely damage U.S. crop yields

- - - - -

WHO WE ARE: Foodforethought is an information service that encourages dialogue and exploration of innovative trends in the global food system. The service is managed by James Kuhns of MetroAg Alliance for Urban Agriculture in collaboration with Wayne Roberts of the Toronto Food Policy Council. To subscribe, please contact editor@foodforethought.net.