<p>Its only marketing, not a science equation... It's saying that their gin gives back CO<span class="math-container">$_2$</span> from other gin which uses fertiliser, and saves a bit of crop space for livestock food. Overall, any crops tend deprive a region of carbon sinks and biodiversity.</p>
<p>Cropland has reduced the worlds total CO<span class="math-container">$_2$</span> sinks by 50+ percent, so using 1 crop for 2 things saves CO<span class="math-container">$_2$</span> sinks, fertilizer and fossil fuel. Animal stock is intrinsically a climate change accelerator too, especially mammal stocks, which occupy forest space and produce methane and use forest space for hay bales and food crops. Saving surplus foods slightly reduces their impact, its reduces the CO<span class="math-container">$_2$</span> budget compared to non surplus feeds.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T04:26:40.087Z
"Saving surplus foods slightly reduces their impact": how (in terms of carbon emitted to the atmosphere)? that is the question!
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T07:40:35.210Z
Because cropland has reduced the wotlds total CO2 sinks by 50+ percent, so using 1 crop for 2 things saves co2 sinks, fertilizer and fossil fuel.
bandybabboon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-01T02:21:40.957Z
2020-07-01T08:24:29.887Z
2020-07-01T08:24:29.887Z
bandybabboon
<p>According to this <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/scotlands-whisky-industry-neer-a-drop-to-drink/a-53922633" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a>, it is claimed that (emphasis is mine)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At Arbikie Distillery in Angus, scientists claim to have developed the world's first &quot;climate positive&quot; gin. By using garden peas instead of wheat, the company has eliminated the need for carbon-intensive fertilizers and can produce animal feed from the leftover material. Taken together, this gives the drink <strong>a negative carbon footprint</strong>, Arbikie says.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I am having trouble understanding how the act of producing animal feed from the leftovers of a process results in a negative carbon footprint.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T19:16:45.777Z
I think they're saying the peas fix nitrogen, and wheat uses fertilizer which has to be produced in a factory, then go through the supply chain to be applied to wheat fields. Does that cancel all of the things @a_donda listed? Your guess is as good as mine.
Spencer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T19:20:01.330Z
However, since this involves economics, which is off-topic, you'll probably want to post this on [Sustainable Living SE](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com) or [Economics Stack Exchange](https://economics.stackexchange.com) to get a good answer.
Spencer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T19:39:54.677Z
@Spencer What does the carbon cycle have to do with economics?
Rodrigo de Azevedo
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T19:52:36.453Z
@RodrigodeAzevedo This isn't about the carbon cycle.
Spencer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-30T19:55:45.230Z
@Spencer Then the question needs to be retagged.
Rodrigo de Azevedo
<climate-change><climate><carbon-cycle><agriculture>
How does the act of producing animal feed from the leftovers of a process result in a negative carbon footprint?
Our
# How does the act of producing animal feed from the leftovers of a process result in a negative carbon footprint?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-30)

According to this [source](https://www.dw.com/en/scotlands-whisky-industry-neer-a-drop-to-drink/a-53922633), it is claimed that (emphasis is mine)

> At Arbikie Distillery in Angus, scientists claim to have developed the world's first "climate positive" gin. By using garden peas instead of wheat, the company has eliminated the need for carbon-intensive fertilizers and can produce animal feed from the leftover material. Taken together, this gives the drink **a negative carbon footprint**, Arbikie says.

I am having trouble understanding how the act of producing animal feed from the leftovers of a process results in a negative carbon footprint.

**Tags:** climate-change, climate, carbon-cycle, agriculture

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think they're saying the peas fix nitrogen, and wheat uses fertilizer which has to be produced in a factory, then go through the supply chain to be applied to wheat fields. Does that cancel all of the things @a_donda listed? Your guess is as good as mine.  
> **username_1**: However, since this involves economics, which is off-topic, you'll probably want to post this on [Sustainable Living SE](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com) or [Economics Stack Exchange](https://economics.stackexchange.com) to get a good answer.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 What does the carbon cycle have to do with economics?  
> **username_1**: @username_2 This isn't about the carbon cycle.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 Then the question needs to be retagged.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-07-01. Score: 1

Its only marketing, not a science equation... It's saying that their gin gives back CO$\_2$ from other gin which uses fertiliser, and saves a bit of crop space for livestock food. Overall, any crops tend deprive a region of carbon sinks and biodiversity.

Cropland has reduced the worlds total CO$\_2$ sinks by 50+ percent, so using 1 crop for 2 things saves CO$\_2$ sinks, fertilizer and fossil fuel. Animal stock is intrinsically a climate change accelerator too, especially mammal stocks, which occupy forest space and produce methane and use forest space for hay bales and food crops. Saving surplus foods slightly reduces their impact, its reduces the CO$\_2$ budget compared to non surplus feeds.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "Saving surplus foods slightly reduces their impact": how (in terms of carbon emitted to the atmosphere)? that is the question!  
> **username_3**: Because cropland has reduced the wotlds total CO2 sinks by 50+ percent, so using 1 crop for 2 things saves co2 sinks, fertilizer and fossil fuel.  

---

