Also higher carbon emissions due to cultivating the soil along with more animal and insects lost in the process of growing crops compared to a meat based diet.
I dont farm cattle,personally, just am fed up of the BBC bias that needs correcting.Livestock grazed leys with concentrates would still have,imo,lower carbon emissions than plant foods grown all round the World with artificial fertilisers,agrochemicals .So does livestock production never cause soil to need cultivation.
Do you only feed permanent pasture & never use concentrates, if that is the case well done. Do you sell fat or store?
I bet if you offered the starving people in Afghanistan red meat but told them by eating it they'd be destroying the planet, the lot would be devoured.It boils my p**s what the bbc splurge. To try and destroy food production in this country and then show film of all these poor buggers starving in Afghanistan and having to sell their kids to buy food so they can survive!
I dont farm cattle,personally, just am fed up of the BBC bias that needs correcting.Livestock grazed leys with concentrates would still have,imo,lower carbon emissions than plant foods grown all round the World with artificial fertilisers,agrochemicals .
A lot of livestock production wouldn't need soil to be cultivated,just look at upland farms in the UK.Some odd fields that are flat enough may be reseeded but much is hill ground with permanent grass that has been there since time immemorial.
I would say there is a lot of sense talked,by many,on this forum relating to the climate.There is a lot of bullocks spoken by the BBC and the media in general.So what do they put in the creep feeders & why are so many wagons taking straw & fodder up into the hills.
I'm actually on mixed farming side.
But on here I've read such a load of bullocks, that someone just needs to tell the truth.
Farming does do all these bad things but it is doing what society has asked it to do.
Of course extensive livestock is great, but there is very little of that. Some dairy farms will plough every inch every two years, use large amounts of artifical fertiliser & buy in concentrates from south america.
What ever the rights & wrongs we need to look at the world as it is & what it needs. Many will say on here that is what we have always done, HAVE we the last 60 years is a tiny amount of time in World history terms.
As said I hope mixed farming thrives in the future, but we need to be open to any new ideas, providing we test them first.
I have always had trouble getting my head around the difference between a finishing unit here and a feed lot in the US other than one is usually in a shed with concentrate and creep feeders while the other is outside with a TMR ration other than size.So what do they put in the creep feeders & why are so many wagons taking straw & fodder up into the hills.
I'm actually on mixed farming side.
But on here I've read such a load of bullocks, that someone just needs to tell the truth.
Farming does do all these bad things but it is doing what society has asked it to do.
Of course extensive livestock is great, but there is very little of that. Some dairy farms will plough every inch every two years, use large amounts of artifical fertiliser & buy in concentrates from south america.
What ever the rights & wrongs we need to look at the world as it is & what it needs. Many will say on here that is what we have always done, HAVE we the last 60 years is a tiny amount of time in World history terms.
As said I hope mixed farming thrives in the future, but we need to be open to any new ideas, providing we test them first.
The scientific explanation is that they are ruminants and the more forage they eat the more methane they produce. However, a static ruminant population does not increase atmospheric methane because methane only lives for ten years at most and therefore a cow only maintains existing methane levels. More intensively farmed cattle produce less methane per head. Ruminants have roamed the Earth in current or greater numbers since time immemorial and they are certainly not responsible for increasing greenhouse gases.I saw a chart the other day which had beef at the top and beef production was meant to have more or use a lot more carbon than any other livestock!!!!
How can the above be possibly true where a lot our beef is produced from beef fed on grass and then perhaps fattened over winter on cereals and silage????
Many thanks for the explanation.The scientific explanation is that they are ruminants and the more forage they eat the more methane they produce. However, a static ruminant population does not increase atmospheric methane because methane only lives for ten years at most and therefore a cow only maintains existing methane levels. More intensively farmed cattle produce less methane per head. Ruminants have roamed the Earth in current or greater numbers since time immemorial and they are certainly not responsible for increasing greenhouse gases.
Neither is the use of nitrogen fertiliser which has just been show to produce essential CO2 that is utilised by non-agricultural industries including for drinks and cooling nuclear reactors. Plus of course, CO2 is essential for plant growth and therefore all life on Earth, which is all carbon based.
Isn’t the case for the prosecution based on the idea that because we can’t instantly stop burning fossil fuels, we have to prevent as much methane and CO2 production as possible though (obviously conveniently forgetting the emissions from rice etc.)?The scientific explanation is that they are ruminants and the more forage they eat the more methane they produce. However, a static ruminant population does not increase atmospheric methane because methane only lives for ten years at most and therefore a cow only maintains existing methane levels. More intensively farmed cattle produce less methane per head. Ruminants have roamed the Earth in current or greater numbers since time immemorial and they are certainly not responsible for increasing greenhouse gases.
Neither is the use of nitrogen fertiliser which has just been show to produce essential CO2 that is utilised by non-agricultural industries including for drinks and cooling nuclear reactors. Plus of course, CO2 is essential for plant growth and therefore all life on Earth, which is all carbon based.
I suspect that it is driven by vegetarian and vegan propagandists.Isn’t the case for the prosecution based on the idea that because we can’t instantly stop burning fossil fuels, we have to prevent as much methane and CO2 production as possible though (obviously conveniently forgetting the emissions from rice etc.)?
Well we certainly saw what happens when fertiliser factories stopped production of CO2 and that was only after a few days, “God help the planet and mankind”, come to think of it I will rephrase that, “God helpIsn’t the case for the prosecution based on the idea that because we can’t instantly stop burning fossil fuels, we have to prevent as much methane and CO2 production as possible though (obviously conveniently forgetting the emissions from rice etc.)?