The August 31 edition of the Wall Street Journal contained a sizable article with this headline: “Food Makers Target Dairy Emissions.”

The article outlined a $47 million European-based program aimed at reducing methane emissions from burping dairy cattle. (Yes, … burping dairy cattle…!)  

The program is financed by Mars, the manufacturers of M&M, Snickers candy bars and hundreds of other food products.

Mars claims they buy milk produced by over 200,000 dairy cows in their food products. They expect to reduce the company’s giant-sized carbon footprint by — get this — slashing the carbon footprint of the dairy producers they source milk from. In fact, they are going so far as to test feeding the cows seaweed as a means of reducing cattle burps.

A Number of Statements in This Article Bother Me…

1. Mars claims dairy is the second biggest contributor to the company’s carbon footprint, so cutting methane emissions is part of their journey.

My Comment: While several USDA and other research studies show agriculture makes up around 8% of worldwide methane emissions, I don’t believe dairy cattle are responsible for nearly two-thirds of the total, and I’m not buying this so-called methane emissions crap.

2. With a $47 million program investment, that works out to an amazing $235 per cow!

My Comment: What a lousy financial investment and waste of dollars that could be put to much better use feeding starving and under-nourished people around the world.

3. Australian researchers maintain they can eliminate cattle burping by feeding a specific type of seaweed, which they say can virtually eliminate methane emissions from dairy cattle.

My Comment: Good luck getting dairy farmers in the U.S. and other parts of the world to import expensive seaweed from Australia to add to already costly rations. And just out of curiosity, how exactly would seaweed be harvested, processed and transported 9,000 miles to North America? Any additional carbon involved? I’m guessing so. 

4. Another laughable comment — and the biggest goof of all —refers to encouraging farmers to start using regenerative agriculture practices. Yusuf Khan, the Wall Street Journal London-based writer who specializes in the newspaper’s coverage of sustainability, inaccurately states that this includes “no-till plowing.”

My Comment: Never in my 50-plus years of covering no-tillage have I ever seen any writer refer to no-till as a plowing technique.

Which Brings Me to Two Conclusions:

A. The whole world would benefit from tossing aside hundreds of poorly prepared environmental, social and government statements and instead consider real science — not social science — to encourage practices that actually make sense for all stakeholders, not just the ones at the top who want good PR and the blessing of the uninformed. No-tillage, strip-tillage and cover crops are being practiced and are real-world programs that can be rewarded if companies truly want to do something about climate change. They can call me up and we’ll help them more wisely spend these dollars, including but not limited to one-on-one farmer-to-farmer education.

B. Reporters — as well as politicians, educators, scientists, stock analysts and economists — may want to spend a day “out on the farm” each year.

What impact could a heaping helping of just a little practical knowledge make on real-world problems — and solutions?