Danny Simms: The Carbon Cycle, livestock emissions and land use

Since writing on this topic – see HERE - I have circulated my paper widely to all parliamentary politicians, news outlets and agricultural lobby groups. The replies I received and discussions I had with the responders showed a real lack of acceptance or even understanding of the carbon cycle. In this paper I try to address this and look further to other serious policies affecting agriculture.

Four issues stood out: 

1)     No understanding of the essential place CO2 has in the growing of all food.

2)     Not recognising that CO2 is one of the trace gasses of the atmosphere

3)     the belief that CO2 and methane are different issues 

4)     an utter lack of appreciation of the uptake of CO2 by growing pasture. 

CO2: The discussion centres on the perceived damage this gas causes without recognising that in fact it is essential to all life. Without CO2 there would be no photosynthesis in growing plants. Without photosynthesis, which produces carbohydrates which are eaten by livestock, and likewise growing all vegetables, root crops, fruit, etc. there would be no food, be you a carnivore or vegan.

So, far from being a pollutant that needs to be eliminated CO2 is the building block of all life.

It is incredibly important, and yet it is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone are trace gasses that in combination make up less than one 10th of one percent of the atmosphere. 0.01 of one percent. and CO2 is only part of that, and methane 1/200th of the CO2 portion. The other gasses make up 99.99%.

Despite this they talk in terms of “CO2 lasts forever so causes damage over a long period” while methane “only lasts about 10 years” and ignore the fact that carbon dioxide feeds the world.

CO2 and Methane: They say methane has a warming effect which sits outside of the carbon cycle. It does not.

The carbon in methane has first been drawn from the atmosphere. As I said in my last, the law of thermodynamics states matter can neither be created, nor destroyed, changed, yes, created, no.

Livestock do not create the gasses. Methane is an integral part of the carbon cycle, different timing but still irrefutably part of it. They acknowledge themselves it reverts to CO2 and water, the two essential elements of photosynthesis.

Some say methane remains in the atmosphere for 12.4 years. Reading I have done has this period as 8 to 9 years. However, this number is irrelevant since it is still a cycle, and the critical number is the total carbon drawn and returned.

Splitting the calculation into parts is a diversion.

It is a simple calculation that needs to be done. Are livestock returning to the atmosphere more carbon than is drawn down through photosynthesis that grows the feed they consume?

This is the only question that needs to be answered to discover if there is a scientific basis to charge farmers for livestock emissions.

And unequivocally the answer is no they are not. You do not need to split hairs by bringing in debate on sequestering or the exact quantum of sequestering in each area. It is the livestock impact we are considering. Don't be drawn by diversions.

I was challenged by statements that the quantum of CO2 taken up by pasture was too difficult to calculate because of the pattern of growth varying widely and the variation in growth and harvest (by ruminants) being so extreme.

However, that calculation is quite simple when the facts are considered.

1) The quantum of emissions from livestock is (claimed) to be known.

2) Livestock cannot create matter (gasses) as per law of thermodynamics. What they emit comes from their feed, what they eat.

This makes the calculation quite simple. What they emit is measured. Apply that figure to the feed side and quite unequivocally the uptake by pasture and fodder crops is known.

And it is greater than the emissions because of a variety of carbon sequestering destinations involved. However, my argument is focussed on uptake and emissions. Because that is so clear cut, I do not need to go into sequestering details

I have never seen anywhere, either from the government who are pushing an agenda regardless of fact, or from any of the organisations supposedly representing farmers, the allowing the fact of the quantum of CO2 drawn from the atmosphere by rapidly growing pasture.

Take this number, add sequestering effect and the fact that livestock do not create any gas and the net result is well less than zero impact on the atmosphere.

The methane/ CO2 debate is a diversion, as is the convoluted soil carbon calculations.

Sadly, to the supreme cost of farmers, to date our representatives have been outmanoeuvred into focus on the diversions rather than the over riding fact.

Livestock are not increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Unequivocally they are contributing to a reduction.

There is no scientific basis or justification for taxing livestock emissions. Their effect is less than net zero.

Nothing the livestock emits has not first come from the atmosphere and the calculation is simple and irrefutable.

I believe this issue is the greatest facing farmers in New Zealand today. Tax at the proposed levels will effectively put beef cattle farming out of business and make a serious dent in dairy farm profitability. And with no justifiable reason.

Now, on top of proposals to tax non-existent net livestock emissions there is a plan to tax fertiliser inputs, somehow linking this to the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Calcium, Phosphate, Potassium, sulphur, and trace elements such as magnesium, boron, copper, cobalt, and selenium are all essential to soil, plant and animal health and to our health since they all form part of our food.

New Zealand soils vary widely from heavy clays to light peat, to rich alluvial, to volcanic to name a few. Most are naturally deficient in many of the nutrients and trace elements I list above. Very few can grow food crops or pastures at sustainable levels without regular inputs.

Incredibly those proposing to tax fertiliser label them “artificial”. Phosphate is either mined from phosphate rock or bird guano, how natural can you get. Calcium is mined from limestone deposits and all the others are naturally occurring elements essential to healthy life.

Because of the wide variety of soils and land use, good farming, market gardening and orcharding practice requires the regular testing of soils and inputs of fertiliser type and volume are based on these.

In many parts of New Zealand the soils are very deficient in one, or more usually, a number of these elements and the starting point is to correct those so the soil can sustain growth.

Not one of these can be called artificial, every one of them is naturally occurring. For livestock farming pasture analysis and animal blood testing for trace elements can form a further valuable source of information when designing a fertiliser input plan.

With a very few exceptions no New Zealand soils can sustain ongoing production without fertiliser inputs.

There is a very simple reason for this and I find it easiest to express it in terms of energy. Growing pastures (or crops or fruit) takes energy from the soil in the form of used nutrients. This energy expressed in the main as carbohydrates then creates growth or sustains life in the consumer, be it animal or human. Just as you cannot drive a car without replacing the energy used. Be it diesel, petrol or electricity, nor can you grow plants without returning to the soil the nutrients (energy) used. To do otherwise leads to the depletion and impoverishment of soils.

As with all climate propaganda there are buzz words used and in this case, it is “ARTIFICIAL FERTILISERS” - and of course no one wants “artificial”. They never let facts get in the way of a good bit of propaganda so the fact that all these fertilisers are naturally occurring and ESSENTIAL elements is ignored or brushed aside.

To unjustifiably, unsustainably, and irrationally tax fertiliser will drive production and profitability down and lead to less food being produced in a world needing ever increasing amounts. And incidentally to less export income.

There are other issues with serious long-term effects linked to the climate change industry and not least of these is the Emissions Trading Scheme and the challenge to farming posed by the artificially high returns to be gained by planting Pinus radiata on productive farmland.

Based on current NZU spot prices of around $70 to $80, investment returns for permanent exotic forests significantly outperform competing land uses, with an estimated investment return of ~$30,000 per hectare. This compares with returns in the order of ~$4,500 per hectare for sheep and beef farming and ~$20,000 for production forestry. The profitability of permanent exotic forests in the NZ ETS relative to other productive land-uses will increase as the NZU price rises over time (source Ministry for Environment and Ministry for Primary Industries discussion document. Managing exotic afforestation incentives).

Compared to sheep and beef, solely through the carbon pricing and nothing to do with productivity, the returns are 6 times greater for the permanent never harvested forest and four times for the production forest. You do not need to be a mathematician to work out what our land will be used for, and it will not be for any productive purpose.

This is already having an impact on land sales. Real estate agents tell me that no sheep and beef producers can compete with those buying for ETS forestry planting and looking at the above figures it is obvious why. Many of these buyers are corporate and overseas investors. We are seeing our food producing land being planted in pine trees.

Because of the high-level financial incentives most of these will be long term forests and not for harvesting.

Long-term environmental outcomes. Large areas of exotic planting with little ongoing management poses long-term risks of animal pests, disease, fire and wilding conifer spread.

Over time, fast-growing, heavy forests planted on steep, erosion prone land are also at risk of instability through heavy rain and windthrow, which can present long-term risks to downstream communities and for landowners (source Ministry for Environment and Ministry for Primary Industries discussion document. Managing exotic afforestation incentives).

We have the ridiculous situation where the government is spending millions of dollars to clear wilding (which means self-sown) pines from unproductive tussock country while we give foreign and corporate investors huge financial incentives to plant Pinus radiata on our productive sheep and beef country.

New Zealand is a food producing nation in a world with burgeoning population and ever-increasing food needs.

We are efficient producers blessed by our equitable climate and fertile soils. Or so we believe. Efficient, yes, equitable climate, yes. But our area of fertile soils is less than we may think and a precious resource. To incentivise the planting of unproductive trees on some of our precious resource is immoral.

In this paper I have highlighted three important policy issues facing agriculture. Tax on livestock emissions, ETS tax on fertiliser, and ETS incentives for forestry on productive land.

If the government continues down this ideologically driven track the future of farming in New Zealand is at serious risk. Combine the attack on livestock farming by taxing non-existent net livestock emissions with punitive taxes on the essential fertilisers (natural, not artificial as they claim). Add in the huge ETS incentives for forestry and you see a bleak future for farming and for New Zealand as the productive base is crippled.

As the next election gets closer it is essential for these policies to be challenged and those who purport to be our farming leaders need to wake up. Either that or step aside because their failures to date are in my opinion a disgrace.

Danny Simms has a background in farming and business, and is an active member of his Northland community.