- Location
- Carmarthenshire, West Wales
I agree, I think a lot of maize can be bad for soil structure and erosion, as can all roots.Look I love cattle & sheep.
But that is rubbish, how about cover crops & less maize silage & fodder beet.
I agree, I think a lot of maize can be bad for soil structure and erosion, as can all roots.Look I love cattle & sheep.
But that is rubbish, how about cover crops & less maize silage & fodder beet.
A lot of the maize grown around us is not fed to any cattle or sheep….I agree, I think a lot of maize can be bad for soil structure and erosion, as can all roots.
It is just as available to you as it is to me. If you want the information, go look for it yourself. Its your kind of procrastination that actually dooms farmers to be swamped by the absolute drivel and speculation that those that wish, even if they don't actually know it yet, to starve or otherwise create food in factories, completely bypassing the land and farmers. The land already being targeted for re-wilding and mass forestry.
I agree that the NFU seem to be totally naive and inept in the way they are tackling this. Give an inch and a mile is taken.Yes, so the BBC complaints team are correct, more than half of global food emissions of GHG come from livestock, it says so on the NFU and AHDB websites. So why are folks laying into the BBC ?
You miss the point entirely. No surprises there. So does the NFU.Keep your hair on.
I cant find anything despite trying to find it. So, if you would like to share your sources please do so. Alternatively if you would like to keep them absolutely secret, then please yourself. But how do you expect anyone to be able to refute claims made on livestock numbers if you dont share.
You miss the point entirely. No surprises there. So does the NFU.
Which is why the propagandists are running rings around UK, and specifically UK agriculture which is being evicerated in the media and the public brainwashed to believe that farming is the root of all evil, rather than their profligate carbon-based lifestyles which they are being primed to believe will be mitigated by energy companies and airlines and shipping companies buying up land that already grows plants, to instead grow trees. The rest being seen as a candidate for rewinding rather than all grow the food that fills supermarket shelves and sustains their very lives.
But what they don't take into account is that the land, fields, hedges crops etc that are used to rear the livestock more than offset the emissions from livestock farming.Yes, so the BBC complaints team are correct, more than half of global food emissions of GHG come from livestock, it says so on the NFU and AHDB websites. So why are folks laying into the BBC ?
I've told you, go find it yourself or find something definitive that counters it. It is your kind of shear idiot, there's no polite way of putting it, that undermines UK agriculture at every turn.What was the point?
Where is your source?
I've told you, go find it yourself or find something definitive that counters it. It is your kind of shear idiot, there's no polite way of putting it, that undermines UK agriculture at every turn.
Not so, @farmerclare has been vegetarian for decades, they could have interviewed her but I don't think she would sing from the required hymn sheet.Seen it they must of sarched the full uk to find a farmer that hasnt eaten any meat for think he said 2 years
They are working on that. They are buying land to plant trees that they can call their own to mitigate their gross pollution and assuage their customer's guilt. Never mind that the land already sequestered carbon under the farmer's stewardship. That doesn't count I suppose.But what they don't take into account is that the land, fields, hedges crops etc that are used to rear the livestock more than offset the emissions from livestock farming.
What other polluting industry or polluters have anything at all to offset their pollution!
This is not a fair comparison & is totally misleading the gullible general public!
But what they don't take into account is that the land, fields, hedges crops etc that are used to rear the livestock more than offset the emissions from livestock farming.
What other polluting industry or polluters have anything at all to offset their pollution!
This is not a fair comparison & is totally misleading the gullible general public!
You are not a journalist, you are just someone who likes to be contrary. You have plenty of time on your hands I'm sure to find information should you really want to. You don't.Are you expecting every single journalist and farmers to individually search for this information?
If only there were a way to put forward a signpost of where to find it.
How am I undermining UK agriculture?
You don't need to go that far. They are here on this forum.I think the problem is a cultural one, the BBC have a staff demographic that leans towards middle class, city living, Guardian readers. The result is some of the BBC output echos heavily on what the "researchers" take in from their Sunday morning reading.
Thats all anyone needs to know really.Ruminants first evolved around 50 million years ago
They are working on that. They are buying land to plant trees that they can call their own to mitigate their gross pollution and assuage their customer's guilt. Never mind that the land already sequestered carbon under the farmer's stewardship. That doesn't count I suppose.
Yes, the public are gullible and their gullibility is helped by people like Old MacDonald, who once had a farm [ee eye ee eye oh] and undermines the farming message, that is more based in reality than those that would turn our land into parkland and forests between cities, cut through by motorways and train tracks..
You are not a journalist, you are just someone who likes to be contrary. You have plenty of time on your hands I'm sure to find information should you really want to. You don't.
That you don't see it is more than half the problem and why UK agriculture is fractious and doomed, and city food factories and imports will almost inevitably take over most of the UK food supply over the next few decades. You cannot even resist the temptation to undermine the simple fact that cattle do not increase greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Not even compared to prior times.
When you say twice the cattle do you only count domesticated cattle as I seem to remember there were millions of bison roaming the plains, millions & millions of wildebeest or do only our cows now take the blame for convenience sake!Well no. I'm someone who, when conducting an argument, likes to have facts and not some made up crap.
Spent 10 minutes googling while having coffee. I've found nothing.
The important distinction is that if there are twice the cattle compared to 200 years ago , then there will be twice the methane production that has a higher warming effect than co2.
Is any of that incorrect?
he said "IF" there are twice the cattleWhen you say twice the cattle do you only count domesticated cattle as I seem to remember there were millions of bison roaming the plains, millions & millions of wildebeest or do only our cows now take the blame for convenience sake!
Just looked it up it seems there were 50 to 60 million bison in the 1800s, I guess they ate nothing!