I don’t but every animal breathes out CO2 and every organic molecule contains carbon!Does anyone know what percentage of a beast is carbon? Some of it must be retained by the animals.
I don’t but every animal breathes out CO2 and every organic molecule contains carbon!Does anyone know what percentage of a beast is carbon? Some of it must be retained by the animals.
About 18.5% C, 65% O, 9.5% H and 3.3% N, same as us.Does anyone know what percentage of a beast is carbon? Some of it must be retained by the animals.
Try doing that in Cumbria, it's hard enough stopping sheep ruining fields in the winter. I like the idea but if everyone did it we wouldn't produce enough beef and they'd all be ready in the summer months
What is the limit on how much grain can be fed to an animal and have it still qualify as 'grass fed' ? I've been told it is up to 40% of diet but I can't find and proof one way or the other.We are now Pasture for Life Certified producers. Butcher is not unfortunately so can’t yet sell from PFLA website but with a few more hoops to jump through we should be able to. Certification is done through same as Organic - though slightly different, many of the standards are the same. If you go to the website you can read the standards.
We believe it is a growing movement and is ideal for us, though wouldn’t suit a lot of people. Have to have the right genetics for the job - ours are ideally suited.
Are you implying that you can't run cattle out side all year round? I've just had a UK farmer tell be that ALL British beef was pasture raised and was never CAFO. [emoji1] [emoji1]Try doing that in Cumbria, it's hard enough stopping sheep ruining fields in the winter. I like the idea but if everyone did it we wouldn't produce enough beef and they'd all be ready in the summer months
What is the limit on how much grain can be fed to an animal and have it still qualify as 'grass fed' ? I've been told it is up to 40% of diet but I can't find and proof one way or the other.
What is the limit on how much grain can be fed to an animal and have it still qualify as 'grass fed' ? I've been told it is up to 40% of diet but I can't find and proof one way or the other.
Only in the dryer parts, I have fields under water in the winter..Are you implying that you can't run cattle out side all year round? I've just had a UK farmer tell be that ALL British beef was pasture raised and was never CAFO. [emoji1] [emoji1]
Cumbria grows grass better than a lot of places, just because you can't out winter cattle doesn't mean it's only good for conservation. It means you try and use your head and bring cattle/sheep indoors and use surplus grain/straw by products into meatThen perhaps your farm isn't suited to beef cattle?
I think that's the point of all this environmental talk, use land for the things it is best suited for. It may be your land isn't suited to sustainable Ag production at all or perhaps only extensive sheep. Perhaps it would be better used for conservation?
Before you yell at me it's not really my opinion, just what some of the "experts" say. The problem is they haven't figured out a way to compensate the land owner for using the land in the way they want.
I think they have figured the basics but many farmers haven't figured how to square this with farming & making a livingproblem is they haven't figured out a way to compensate the land owner for using the land in the way they want.
But presumably, the carbon footprint of such a system must be significantly higher than grass-based systems which use judicious amounts of concentrate/protein supplementation.
You are looking at 1 element - methane emissions - and ignoring all other factors.Broadly true, if uncomfortable. Two factors; shorter production period and and far less methane produced on cereal based diets compared with forage based diets. Methane is cyclical as we all know, but does have a 60 x greater greenhouse effect whilst it is in the atmosphere. The diet effect is due to methanogenic rumen bacteria being inhibited by the lower rumen pHs and generally being fibre digesters not starch digesters.
My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.You are looking at 1 element - methane emissions - and ignoring all other factors.
Yes it is - see above.My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.
I’m afraid you’re way off with your reasoning. There was an old measure of “greenhouse gases” which was known as GWP100 (GWP stands for Global Warming Potential).My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.
To clarify, this is what the current standard is but it definitely ISN’T supported by the PFLA - their standards are set at 100% forage, so it’s black and white rather than grey!PFLA says definition of “grass fed” in UK is 51% grass - assume government figure! A lot of UK beef in my opinion is produced from the equivalent of CAFOs - just covered sheds, rather than outdoor pens.
A problem with these calculations is that carbon sequestered by grassland isn't taken in to account?My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.
Sorry yes I needed to edit that! Exactly. However I suppose we must be careful- I have had arguments on Twitter with farmers who say that we can’t call it “grass” because because it might be herbs, or hedge plants, or trees rather than grass!To clarify, this is what the current standard is but it definitely ISN’T supported by the PFLA - their standards are set at 100% forage, so it’s black and white rather than grey!
(Just the way you worded it sounded like 51% was a PFLA standard!)