> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# We can keep the cows!
- URL: https://goodoil.news/we-can-keep-the-cows/
- Published: 2019-06-14T23:30:37.000Z
- Updated: 2019-07-10T10:26:30.000Z
- Author: WH
- Tags: Blog, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2024-07-17 04:14

Good news from a paper by a scientific expert agrobiologist and researcher Dr Albrecht Glatzle. His recent published research that shows “**there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate**”

The key points from this research as set out at NoTricksZone are:

> “In order to get the effective man-made part of the emissions from managed ecosystems, one has to subtract the baseline emissions of the respective native ecosystems or of the pre-climate change managed ecosystems from those of today’s agro-ecosystems. **Omitting this correction leads to a systematic overestimation of farm-born non-CO2 GHG emissions.** Scientific publications generally do not take this consideration into account, as farm-born CH4 and N2O emissions are consistently interpreted at a 100% level as an additional anthropogenic GHG source, just like fossil fuel-born CO2\.   
>  
> “Dung patches concentrate the nitrogen ingested from places scattered across the pasture. Nichols et al. \[2016\] found no significant differences between emission factors from the patches and the rest of the pasture, which means **the same amount of nitrous oxide is emitted whether or not the herbage passes livestock’s intestine**s. However, the IPCC and FAO do consider mistakenly all nitrous oxide leaking from manure as livestock-born and therefore man-made.”

> “Between 1990 and 2005, the world cattle population rose by more than 100 million head (according to FAO statistics). **During this time, atmospheric methane concentration stabilized completely.** These empirical observations show that livestock is not a significant player in the global methane budget \[Glatzle, 2014\]. This appreciation has been corroborated by Schwietzke et al. \[2016\] who suggested that **methane emissions from fossil fuel industry and natural geological seepage have been 60–110% greater than previously thought**.”  
>  
> “When looking to the global distribution of average methane concentrations as measured by ENVISAT (Environmental Satellite) \[Schneising et al., 2009\] and the geographical distribution of domestic animal density, respectively \[Steinfeld et al., 2006\], **no discernible relationship between both criteria was found** \[Glatzle, 2014\].”

![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/31/f4/31f4e20a-0315-499e-83ff-139e8eab53bf/content/images/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/global_methane.jpg)

> “Although the most recent estimates of yearly livestock-born global methane emissions came out 11% higher than earlier estimates \[Wolf et al., 2017\], **we still cannot see any discernible livestock fingerprint in the global methane distribution**.”  
>  
> “The idea of a considerable livestock contribution to the global methane budget relies on theoretical bottom-up calculations. Even in recent studies, e.g., \[Mapfumo et al., 2018\], just the emissions per animal are measured and multiplied by the number of animals. Ecosystemic interactions and baselines over time and space are generally ignored \[Glatzle, 2014\]. Although quite a number of publications, such as the excellent most recent FCRN report (Food Climate Research Network) \[2017\], do discuss extensively ecosystemic sequestration potentials and natural sources of GHGs, **they do not account for baseline emissions from the respective native ecosystems when assessing manmade emissions of non-CO2 GHGs from managed ecosystems**. This implies a systematic overestimation of the warming potential, particularly when assuming considerable climate sensitivity to GHG emissions.”  
>  
> “\[W\]e could not find a domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of the atmospheric methane concentration. **Consequently, in science, politics, and the media, climate impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been systematically overstated.** Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. **There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”**  
>  
> “\[E\]ven LA Chefs Column \[Zwick, 2018\], in spite of assuming a major global warming impact of methane, came to the conclusion: ‘**When methane is put into a broader rather than a reductive context, we all have to stop blaming cattle (‘cows’) for climate change.’”**  
>  
> [NoTricksZone](https://notrickszone.com/2018/12/03/new-research-methane-emissions-from-livestock-have-no-detectable-effect-on-the-climate/?ref=goodoil.news)

Question to James Shaw: Is your position based on science?

Question to Todd Muller: Will you be defending the Kiwi farmers?