In a world where it’s difficult to get anyone to agree on anything – from the best cup of coffee to what we should or shouldn’t eat – the court of public opinion leans heavily in favor toward a reduction in greenhouse gases within our agricultural supply chain. But how to accomplish that goal – and who in the chain is ultimately responsible for it – are other matters altogether.
Our farmers and ranchers are taking it on the chin all too often, and it isn’t fair. Not because they don’t contribute to greenhouse gas emissions or that they don’t want to continue to lessen their carbon footprints. It’s more a lack of recognition of the work they do to grow our food, bolster our economy, and serve as stewards of our land. As a society, we are quick to point a finger at them and far less likely to lend a hand.
The fact is, our producers don’t operate in a vacuum. The network or chain that results in the food we eat is large and complex, made up of scientists and researchers, suppliers, farmers, transporters, warehousers, retailers, restaurateurs, consumers, investors and more. We need buy-in and cooperation from all of them – indeed, from all of us – as we work to put the brakes on the runaway train known as global warming and allow our farmers to do what they do best: produce high-quality food for a growing population.
In May 2023, we held a first-time summit at the University of California (UC) – Davis. Organized and sponsored by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the UC – Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and UC – Davis CLEAR Center, the State of the Science Summit, with a theme of “Feed Strategies to Reduce Enteric Emissions" pulled together representatives from all facets of the supply chain to share information, lay out challenges and impediments, and form cross-functional associations that will serve us well in the future. According to at least one expert who spoke at the summit, that rare type of collaboration will be essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food supply chain.
“… There is a role for each of these players,” said Vrashabh Kapate, a speaker at the summit and a member of the Environmental Defense Fund team. Starting with scientists, he highlighted the importance of research aimed at reducing methane from animal agriculture, and added how essential it is to have an efficient approval process, adoption incentives, safety and productivity considerations, and acceptance by the public, to name but a few must-haves. Indeed, everyone has a part to play.
Sadly, the fact that it will take a proverbial village is lost all too often, especially when food companies blow their horns by publishing their impressive sustainability goals, according to Michael Boccadoro, executive director of Dairy Cares, an NGO that works to help the dairy sector become more sustainable. Naming a handful of the most recognizable food companies on the planet, Boccadora shared their carbon-reduction targets, stating a fact that soon became obvious to his audience.
“These food companies cannot under any circumstances achieve their goals by looking at their own emissions,” he said. “They have to look backward to the farm.”
To support his claim, Boccadora pointed to statistics that demonstrate that most of the food supply’s greenhouse gas emissions are tied to production. If for no other reason, it makes sense to focus our efforts there.
Understanding methane
That probably comes as no surprise. For example, cattle and the resulting beef production have been the topic of discussion for a long while. Chalk that up to cows’ specialized digestive system, which can break down plant matter that humans can’t. That’s a very good thing in terms of upcycling. However, there is a downside – and its name is methane. The potent greenhouse gas is given off primarily in the form of belches that are produced when cows and other ruminant animals digest their food.
Our understanding of methane and how it behaves in the environment has been evolving in recent years. Scientists at some of the world’s leading institutions are showing us that methane is a fast and furious gas that results in high atmospheric heat, but only for a decade or so. After that, it’s broken down into water vapor and carbon dioxide, and extracted by plants as part of the biogenic carbon cycle. Given the constant emissions-extraction system, if what we give off today is the same as what we emitted 10 years ago, no additional atmospheric warming is taking place.
Yet, we know we need to reduce methane emissions in animal agriculture … and pretty aggressively, too. And by “reduce,” I mean get to carbon neutrality and well beyond so that the sector can make up for past emissions, not just refrain from adding additional warming. Incidentally, research at UC – Davis shows that the lofty goal is achievable in the near future. Even more, it can help to offset global warming from other sectors, including the high-carbon-emitting transportation and energy industries.
Progress being made
Statewide, Californians are being tasked with a 40% reduction in methane by 2030, the most ambitious target in the world. Pressure is on our producers to hit the mark, and to their credit, many are chipping away at it even as you read this. However, for reductions to be successful and, more importantly, sustainable, we can’t leave our farmers and ranchers out in the cold. The yoke was never meant to be theirs alone. To make matters worse, pressure often falls on them, but credit rarely rests with them.
Feed additives, manure management, genetic engineering, vaccines and other cutting-edge technologies are bright spots on the horizon, to be sure. The first two already are being put into practice and are yielding positive results. They also have the added benefit of wider acceptance by consumers, a necessary element for success.
“There’s a lot of progress out there. This is happening,” said Jennifer Bockhahn, an animal science expert with a long list of research projects and cooperative extension to her credit. While shedding a positive light on what is taking place in the supply chain, she cautioned we need to do a better job of deciding what our baseline is and linking the science and its resulting applications to an accounting system that measures greenhouse gas savings. In addition, keeping the savings in the supply chain is important; it may well be the only way we’ll be able to demonstrate results. To put it plainly, if members of the supply chain are selling their credits to other industries, we may never know how much animal agriculture is doing to help the environment.
When it comes to getting our arms around greenhouse gas emissions in our food supply chain, it makes sense to look to our farmers and ranchers, not only because that’s where the lion’s share of animal agriculture’s methane is coming from, but also because producers are arguably the linchpin in our food supply. The rest of the chain – if not the world – needs to support our producers’ ability to produce and continue to be leading stewards.
So, while arguments erupt over just about everything, can we agree on one basic fact?
We can’t live without our farmers and ranchers. Perhaps it’s about time we help the public understand that.
