A polluting controller?

In the past I have already referred to the need to reduce meat consumption in the face of the significant differences between the industrial form of farming in large farms in Western countries and nomadic herders, mainly in African countries. They are still not considered

In the past I have already referred to the need to reduce meat consumption in the face of the significant differences between the industrial form of farming in large farms in Western countries and nomadic herders mainly in African countries, but also in Asia and South America. These are shepherd populations whose main wealth and sustenance is based on herds of cattle and sheep,

Now following the conference in Glasgow, the call for a reduction in emissions and a decision to reduce methane emissions, including emissions from livestock - mainly dairy farms - has been issued. However, the decision does not refer to the differences between industrial dairy farms in the West and herds of sheep and cattle of nomadic shepherds in arid regions. In other words, all herds of cattle and sheep are compared to cars.

Therefore, it is appropriate to go back and define the difference between herders-nomads and huge farms in which the cattle and the accompanying means of production constitute an industry.

Domestic animals have become the "villain" that is blamed for climate change, there are studies and indicators that show that farm animals cause 14.5% of all emissions and climate changes caused by humanity, directly or indirectly,

 Hence the call for a global and extreme change in the production of animal products and the methods of animal feeding, except that the general call does not refer to the subspecies (breeds) of the cattle and to the geographical location,

 According to a new report Report: Are livestock always bad for the planet Published in Pastres, a research program for the study of pastures, the need to differentiate between production systems is of fundamental importance, since not all milk and meat production systems are equal and similar. Systems of nomadic herds such as those that exist throughout Africa and elsewhere are completely different and their impact on the climate is different and mostly much less than that of industrial production systems in the West, yet when researchers deal with feeding and production they tend to lump all cattle herds (and sheep) into one package, and mistakenly treat them as the same A form of pollution from cows and that from cars or coal-fired power plants.

And not her. The simplicity to the point of light-mindedness in which environmental organizations state that "all farm animals are bad" is wrong and misleading and there is a need to illuminate the issue.

The Pastres report deals with the data from which the problem is illuminated and the assessment of the effects of farm animals on the climate. There is no doubt that the industrial systems for the production of animal products harm the environment and water systems, cause the destruction of forests and emit considerable amounts of greenhouse gases, therefore in order to mitigate the damage there is a need for an improvement in the production of food for animals, and correspondingly a reduction in the consumption of animal products in general and meat in particular, but industrial production systems are Only one type and the data collection on emissions does not separate and does not take into account the variations of other systems.

In order to assess the environmental damage, it is necessary to check the difference between the life cycles of the different production methods, A test in which significant differences were found

As the emissions assessment relies only on industrial systems and is frequently quoted in the media Estimate based on data from approximately 40,000 farms and 1,600 producers from North America and Europe. However, since not all farm animal breeding methods are equal, an extrapolation not only does not give a correct picture, but gives a wrong picture.

for example, in research in Kenya It turned out that the estimation of the emissions from cattle in Africa is incorrect, since the cows of nomadic herders are small and since the grazing is controlled they eat food of variable quality and have a physiology adapted to the environment.

The cows of the nomadic shepherds are not among the developed breeds that have been studied in "breathing cells" to check emissions, when most studies focused on the level of emissions of one cow or of a production unit. Since it turns out that only 0.4% of the studies were conducted in Africa, where a nomadic-grazing lifestyle is widespread, many of these data are incorrect.

To show the advantage of industrial production compared to nomadic herds, the methane emissions of a cow that eats raw food in an open pasture are compared to the possibility of reducing emissions with improved food, but here again the goal is defeated since a broad view of the whole system is needed, for example intermittent nomadic grazing Improves carbon absorption in the soil.

Methane gas is indeed a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but its life span is short compared to the carbon that remains forever in the atmosphere. The idea of ​​cutting methane emissions is important in the short term, Until carbon emissions can be moderated and this should also be done quickly. Therefore there is a big difference in the way greenhouse gases are treated and how the warming is assessed,

Simply put, cows and cars are not equal.

The base or line from which one starts is important, for example (cows) farm animals in Africa "replace" antelopes that emit methane, on the other hand, in industrial systems, in addition to direct emissions, many emissions are created in the secondary production and distribution system, in the use of mineral fuel, in the establishment of infrastructure, in the need to transport food and treat excreta. All of these create severe environmental hazards.

Comprehensive assessments will show that indeed farm animals in Africa emit methane, but when you calculate their contribution to the environment that includes improving soils that absorb carbon and even a contribution to biodiversity, a different and even positive picture is obtained.

Food of animal origin is essential and important for populations in Africa in particular, as well as for low-income populations around the world in arid regions where growing other food is almost impossible. Products from cattle and sheep, camels, yaks, llamas and more are a unique source of income and life for many, and natural pastures are abouthalf of the land surfaces and are home to millions of people who live and subsist from farm animals around the world.

When countries commit to reducing methane emissions, there is an urgent need for a discussion that will allow verification of test methods and a system that will allow the raising of farm animals in areas given over to herders-nomads.

I should add that since we are dealing with emissions, it is worth knowing that when we talk about "net-zero" we do not mean zero emissions but rather reaching a balance where the level of emissions does not exceed the ability of the natural environment to absorb carbon through forests, Meadows, green agricultural areas, algae, etc. On top of that, technological systems will be added to extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and maybe there will even be success in lowering the concentration of DTP in the atmosphere. I doubt.

I will add what is already gaining an understanding that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of humanity there should be control of humanity for the sake of the environment.

More of the topic in Hayadan:

• Why do so many epidemics originate in Asia and Africa - and why can we expect more such epidemics in the future?
• The source of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa: bats
• Freeing Africa from plastic
• The government decided to move Israel to a low-carbon economy by 2050
• Summary of the sixth IPCC climate report for decision makers. document