Arla

farmer on a bike · Oct 27, 2023

vantage said:
a special mention for @farmer on a bike , who is doing great work on our behalf in questioning the GWP100, GWP* issue, plus the commercial realities.

Thank you, but many other BoR are also working hard on this, @Chips led on this and @dinderleat is also making important contributions, along with many others.

farmer on a bike · Oct 27, 2023

BM2016 said:
The biggest Issue I have with the fact our sequestration isnt taken into account is that we are negatively impacted quite largely on the enteric fermentation for having older extensive permanent pasture despite the fact of having near 6% organic matter in the soils

Totally agree that this is not satisfactory.

farmer on a bike · Oct 27, 2023

Jackov Altraids said:
So you are more than capable of writing up a similar report to the British Airways one, for dairy farmers on how quickly you can reach net zero which only requires adoption of technology/ transport that does not use fossil fuels as it becomes available and addressing your scope 3 emissions by putting pressure on your feed and fert suppliers.

You can easily brush aside methane as being part of the natural cycle, not contributing to climate change with insufficient evidence on how much methane from a ruminant actually reaches the atmosphere.
That would be entirely valid unlike the airlines complete disregard of the effect of fuel particles and water vapour left high in the atmosphere.

I know you will find that laughable, but it would be a reasonable place to start.

Not laughing, if you put @vantage post with yours, probably gives you an idea of how I am trying to push.

The reality is that Arla have already been accused of green washing in Sweden and are now being very careful to follow Science Based Targets (which is an organisation over seeing standards). This can be frustrating but it will be a moving process.

There are indicators (I am using that word because evidence would equate to peer reviewed science) that some farms are already net zero even using GWP100. Those farms appear to be sequestering significantly more carbon than they use, but this will need strong robust evidence to confirm this.

Currently the only clear option seems to be to measure soil organic matter across whole farms taking cores of probably 40cm plus regularly. This would obviously be very costly, but if done on a sample of farms may enable recorded management techniques to linked to predictions on soil organic matter increases across all farms. This is the way the French are working:

Fiches références systèmes CAP2'ER - édition 2023

Les données sont issues de 8 324 élevages bovins laitiers français engagés dans la Ferme Laitière Bas Carbone. 17 référentiels sont disponibles, avec une fiche présentant les résultats globaux à l'échelle de la France, 10 fiches "régions" recensant les résultats selon la localisation...

idele.fr

This link is from research by another Arla BoR.

Given the benefit to UK agriculture this evidence could provide, it is a pity we cannot get government support for this.

farmer on a bike · Oct 27, 2023

Jackov Altraids said:
One final pair of questions from me.
Thanks for indulging me.

I have seen many sustainable questionnaires and assessments, and have had first hand experience of this becoming part of a supermarket contract.
They have all wanted to know about all my environmental assets. Hedges, trees, ponds, scrub etc. as well as crops/grassland.
So have Arla asked for this too?

Because if
"Sequestration is not included in the Arla SIM and carbon foot printing, therefore you are not transferring or loosing any carbon credits in any currently recognised form."

why do they need any information beyond your feed, fuel and energy inputs?

Probably because the next area that is concerning NGOs etc is ecological diversity.
I agree some are talking about the items you mention as potential sequestration but they are certainly not being used in Arla’s carbon footprint tool, I don’t know the detail of other tools that are attempting to include sequestration such as the SRUC and Farm Carbon Toolkit.

delilah · Oct 27, 2023

dinderleat said:
Are they rhetorical questions ……..

Nope. This is a rhetorical question:

delilah said:
And you think that non Arla members shouldn't be taking a view on any of this ? Nah.

Whereas these are actual questions:

delilah said:
- Why are you working to GWP100 ? Who is holding a gun to your head ?

- Why are you putting the carbon into the same tank as the milk ? If you wish to see producers get an income from their carbon, why not provide them with an additional tank to put their carbon into, for them to sell as a seperate commodity ?

- What happens to the multi-enterprise farm when the buyers of their commodities collectively want more carbon than they have ?

delilah · Oct 27, 2023

To which I will add another question: What is the Arla view on feeding cattle methane suppressants ? I am assuming it is a measure Arla support, given the view that all of the damage is being caused on farm.

delilah · Oct 27, 2023

delilah said:
To which I will add another question: What is the Arla view on feeding cattle methane suppressants ? I am assuming it is a measure Arla support, given the view that all of the damage is being caused on farm.

Will take that as a "Yes" then.

In which case you will also support the Zelp methane masks.

You had better start saving up for the vet bills. Because I don't know about your ladies but I can guarantee that the minute one of ours gets some itchy straw/thistle stuck in there she is going to go in search of a hard corner to rip it off on.

That's the mad world you are sleep walking into. Muppets.

puppet · Oct 27, 2023

Is it April 1st?
Instead of methane slowly degrading we are going to immediately convert it to 2 GHGs - water vapour and CO2.
How much methane do cattle produce compared to all ths other natural sources and fossil fuel consumption?

vantage · Oct 27, 2023

delilah said:
Will take that as a "Yes" then.

In which case you will also support the Zelp methane masks.

View attachment 1144918

You had better start saving up for the vet bills. Because I don't know about your ladies but I can guarantee that the minute one of ours gets some itchy straw/thistle stuck in there she is going to go in search of a hard corner to rip it off on.

That's the mad world you are sleep walking into. Muppets.

puppet said:
Is it April 1st?
Instead of methane slowly degrading we are going to immediately convert it to 2 GHGs - water vapour and CO2.
How much methane do cattle produce compared to all ths other natural sources and fossil fuel consumption?

More to life · Oct 28, 2023

Aren’t all carbon offset schemes slowing being proven as unworkable and the only way to truly reduce carbon is to stop producing or consuming it. Soil sequestration being one of these unworkable goals. The industry built up around this will take years to unwind and eventually net zero will be junk. The dairies should be focused on proving milk has a low carbon footprint and not accepting the arbitrary figures produced.

delilah · Oct 28, 2023

puppet said:
Is it April 1st?

Every day is all fools day in this industry. The methane mask is backed by key players; Harper Adams, ABP, NFU.

For the purposes of this thread it is backed by Arla. That's what happens when you go down the dead end road of being 'retail led'. You can't come out with bollox like this:

Facts on Arla’s climate targets

• In Arla, scope 3 emissions constitute approx. 96% of total emissions and if isolating emissions from the dairy farms, these constitute approx. 81% of Arla’s total emissions.

And then expect not to have to medicate their feed and fit them with methane masks. Such a cavalier attitude would quite rightly be condemned by the media and your customers. Set yourselves up as the fall guys, expect to be shat on.

dinderleat · Oct 28, 2023

delilah said:
Every day is all fools day in this industry. The methane mask is backed by key players; Harper Adams, ABP, NFU.

For the purposes of this thread it is backed by Arla. That's what happens when you go down the dead end road of being 'retail led'. You can't come out with bollox like this:

Facts on Arla’s climate targets

• In Arla, scope 3 emissions constitute approx. 96% of total emissions and if isolating emissions from the dairy farms, these constitute approx. 81% of Arla’s total emissions.

And then expect not to have to medicate their feed and fit them with methane masks. Such a cavalier attitude would quite rightly be condemned by the media and your customers. Set yourselves up as the fall guys, expect to be shat on.

Some charcoal tablets might not do you any harm

dinderleat · Oct 28, 2023

I do agree methane isn’t the issue but you can only work with what situation you find yourself in.
If arla as a European coop don’t do anything, local governments will make them no matter how wrong we think it is. It’s easier for us to try and guide something in the right direction rather than try to stop it in its tracks.
@delilah Unless you are a milk supplier and member of arla you don’t have a say on how they run the business.

DaveGrohl · Oct 28, 2023

dinderleat said:
I do agree methane isn’t the issue but you can only work with what situation you find yourself in.
If arla as a European coop don’t do anything, local governments will make them no matter how wrong we think it is. It’s easier for us to try and guide something in the right direction rather than try to stop it in its tracks.
@delilah Unless you are a milk supplier and member of arla you don’t have a say on how they run the business.

Arla should have been refusing to pander to it. If they’d done that and demanded the best science be applied it would‘ve been a massive shock through the whole system. Someone somewhere needs to stand up for sanity and Humanity. No one else has skin in the game so they just play along making promises.

I can’t think of a single public body/company that are in a better position to do this in Europe than Arla. By not doing this they’ve thrown you all under the bus. Scope 3 is the wheels of the bus. Scope 3 is all about a baseline and then it’s cuts cuts cuts. I absolutely sympathise, but this ain’t going away with a bit of protein tweaking or finding a better foot trimmer.

onesiedale · Oct 28, 2023

dinderleat said:
I do agree methane isn’t the issue but you can only work with what situation you find yourself in.
If arla as a European coop don’t do anything, local governments will make them no matter how wrong we think it is. It’s easier for us to try and guide something in the right direction rather than try to stop it in its tracks.
@delilah Unless you are a milk supplier and member of arla you don’t have a say on how they run the business.

"The best way to get people to think for themselves and make the best decisions, is to ask questions of them"

Whilst @delilah knows he doesn't have a say on how the business is run, he is passionate (albeit frustrated) about the industry on the farm side of the gate.
deep down, everyone knows he is right!

The cows are not the problem.

buffalo_soldier · Oct 28, 2023

Unfortunately its the delivery that lets them down. The only stuff sticking in my mind is words like cartel, liars. thieves and i think muppets is in there, as im only skim reading their posts now.

I do see their point and it is a valid one.
I just dont see Arla standing on a hill shouting. They work with what is, for their members.

That is the job of our Industry representatives, NFU, AHDB, etc. and that is sadly lacking.

farmer on a bike · Oct 28, 2023

I absolutely agree that cows are not the problem. but this is what are we facing:

https://klimaraadet.dk/sites/default/files/node/field_files/Adaptation%20of%20the%20Danish%20Farm%20Sector%20-%20English%20Policy%20Brief.pdf

The Danish government seems minded to implement this proposal. That would set a precedent, can you image our government of what ever colour, short on tax revenues, looking over the north sea and thinking "well if they can do it"?
So how do you stop this:
a) Tell them, "I know you are wrong, I will not engage, I will ignore you"
b) Tell them, "Ok we hear you, we think this is the wrong way to go about it, we already have programs in place to act on this, we are looking at every possible option, any tax will not make it happen any faster but just get passed on to consumers"

I agree, in my personal view, feed additives are not the answer and Arla is very clear that we will take part in trials, but if you want them used on a farm scale they must be directly paid for by the customer.

onesiedale · Oct 28, 2023

buffalo_soldier said:
Unfortunately its the delivery that lets them down. The only stuff sticking in my mind is words like cartel, liars. thieves and i think muppets is in there, as im only skim reading their posts now.

I do see their point and it is a valid one.
I just dont see Arla standing on a hill shouting. They work with what is, for their members.

That is the job of our Industry representatives, NFU, AHDB, etc. and that is sadly lacking.

...at the same time, the industry representatives will look up to Arla as a leading player.
Who benefits when Arla make a statement like this?;
Arla, scope 3 emissions constitute approx. 96% of total emissions and if isolating emissions from the dairy farms, these constitute approx. 81% of Arla’s total emissions.

buffalo_soldier · Oct 28, 2023

Above my pay grade im afraid.

Id be curious how many of these industry representatives have picked up the phone to any leading player on this or any other subject....cough...Red Tractor....cough.
Arla do engage, i know that much.

farmer on a bike · Oct 28, 2023

onesiedale said:
...at the same time, the industry representatives will look up to Arla as a leading player.
Who benefits when Arla make a statement like this?;
Arla, scope 3 emissions constitute approx. 96% of total emissions and if isolating emissions from the dairy farms, these constitute approx. 81% of Arla’s total emissions.

Unfortunately (because I don't like it either) this is the "I hear you" part of the equation. If we don't say things like that, it becomes the "I am ignoring you" part of the equation. This message is not for farmers it is for the DK government and other like minded organisations.

At the same time we know we have to shift the Science Based Target towards the correct understanding of the importance of sequestration, GWP* and the science of pasture. This week the Arla sustainability team of Arla, including Hanne Sondergaard, head of Agriculture and Sustainability have been at Moore Park in Ireland looking at all these issues, this meeting has been facilitated by one of our UK BoRs.

Arla

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page