You’d think it would be the other way around, but it isn’t and the results are very interesting.

Few things have escaped environmentalists’ scorn, and even cows have not been exempt from blame for climate change. Emissions from livestock production have become an increasing focus of efforts to fight climate change. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 11.1% of emissions worldwide come from livestock production, and the organization released a report last year urging Americans to eat less meat. If people aren’t eating meat, the argument goes, then fewer cows are produced. If there’s fewer cows, there’s less emissions.

However, research by pro-agribuisness outfits Alltech and Archbold suggests that the thinking on reducing emissions at the source is missing a bigger picture on cattles’ relationship with the land, and possibly, by removing grazing from pastures, emissions will actually go up.

What it comes down to, as Dr. Vaughn Holder points out to Just the News, is cattle can consume a lot of food byproducts (like orange pulp) that humans can’t. While Holder says they can be composted but the byproducts in question used for composting or even if they’re sent to landfills, that increases carbon emissions much more than if it was fed to cattle.

Additionally, Dr. Holder reveals to Just the News, additives to cut down on cow methane emissions have a limited effect and can some problems down the line. If the focus is mainly on the cows, then the rest of the ecosystem is neglected since it absorbs carbon emissions with the cattle being there since they are part of the carbon cycle.

This comes on the heels of another scientific manuscript where researchers came to similar conclusions, except the observations apply to carbon dioxide emissions. In the case of the manuscript authored by scientists at Yale School of the Environment, like cows, bison can store tons of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from grazing and they too play an important part in the carbon cycle.

There’s a lot of nuance that environmentalists and the media ignore in order to make their pitch, especially when it comes to climate change. To build on Dr. Holder’s points, if the focus is on carbon emissions it is simplistic to think that just by removing cows, ending meat production, or convincing people to reduce or halt meat consumption. A lot of carbon is embedded in the soil, and to remove cows from or even restrict the ability to use grazing lands may not be the best option since little is known about the effects of doing so.

But, then again, environmentalists and most of the media are political activists, so their black-and-white outlook is grounded in their desire to achieve and maintain political power. Including if the political Left can manipulate scientific data to achieve their political ends and not necessarily to attain desirable outcomes based on realistic solutions.

PHOTO CREDIT: Pixabay