Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
49
Clauss, Marcus and Hummel, Jürgen (2005), 'The Digestive Performance of Mammalian Herbivores: Why Big
may not be Better',
Mammal Review
, Vol 35, 2005, pp 174-87.
50
Subak, Susan (2004),
Methane from the House of Tudor and the Ming Dynasty
, CSERGE/ University of East
51
Westing, Arthur H (1976), 'A World in Balance',
Environmental Conservation
, 8 (3), pp 177-83; cited in Cop-
pinger, R and Smith, C (1985)
The Domestication of Evolution
, Environmental Conservation, 10 (4), pp 283-92.
52
Savory, Allan with Butter field, Jody (1999),
Holistic Management
, Island Press, p 198.
53
Keppler, F
et al
(2006), 'Methane Emissions from Terrestrial Plants under Aerobic Conditions',
Nature
, 439,
187-91.
54
Crutzen, P J
et al
(2006), 'Methane Production from Mixed Tropical Savanna and Forest Vegetation in Venezuela,
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
, 6, 3093-7, 2006.
55
Houweling, S
et al
(2006), 'Atmospheric Constraints on Methane Emissions from Vegetation',
Geophysical Re-
search Letters
, 33 Art No L15821 . However subsequent studies have not corroborated this view and suggest that meth-
ane production by plants is “relatively moderate”: Kirschbaum et al (2007) 'How Important is Aerobic Methane Release
by Plants',
Functional Plant Science and Biology
, 1:1, pp 138-145.
56
FAO/IAEA (2008),
Belching Ruminants, a Minor Player in Atmospheric Methane
, Joint FAO/ IAEA Programme:
Nuclear
Techniques
in
Food
and
Agriculture,
57
There is a useful discussion of some of these figures in Garnett, Tara (2008),
Cooking Up a Storm, Food Green-
house Gases and our Changing Climate
, Food Climate Research Network, 2008.
58
That certainly explains the subsequent FAO document on livestock, belatedly published in 2010, called
Livestock in
the Balance
, which focuses primarily on protecting smallholders from the hasty introduction of intensive farming meth-
ods. FAO, (2010),
Livestock in the Balance
, State of Food and Agriculture Report 2009.
59
Baumert, K
et al
(2005),
Navigating the Numbers
, World Resources Institute pp 4-5.
http://pdf.wri.org/navigat-
60
That is why, in the LULUCF section of Fig 3, items such as Afforestation and Reforestation register as a negative
value - they represent newly established carbon sinks which absorb some of the carbon that is released into the atmo-
sphere when other sinks are destroyed. LULUCF emissions and the matter of carbon sequestration follow a different dy-
namic from the other elements of the carbon budget and are dealt with in subsequent chapters, which focus on land use.
61
The Strategy Unit (2008),
Food Matters: Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century
, Cabinet Office, p 13.
62
FAO op cit 5.
63
Ibid.
64
Tara Garnett's figures show that emissions from fertilizer manufacture, distribution and processing (FDP) represent
49 per cent of UK food consumption emissions; a similar preliminary estimate from DEFRA gives 35 per cent. The bulk
of these emissions will be from fossil fuels. By contrast, the FAO's calculations for livestock production give 0.07 bil-
lion tonnes for FDP (plus or minus 0.02); ie just 5 per cent of the figure of 1.4 billion tonnes due to intensive livestock
production
alone
(not counting LULUCF emissions); and only 1.5 per cent of the 4.6 billion tonnes from extensive and
intensive livestock combined (again not counting LULUCF). There is clearly a huge discrepancy between the methodo-
