Methane
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
- Location
- Co. Tyrone
Not exactly on topic of thread so please redirect if somewhere more appropriate, or if study posted here before. Study published November last year on soil carbon sequestration's potential to offset constant ruminant methane emissions. Anyone read and have any thoughts?
www.nature.com
Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions - Nature Communications
While accounting for intrinsic differences between short- and long-lived greenhouse gases, solely relying on soil carbon sequestration in grasslands to offset warming effect of emissions from current ruminant systems is not feasible
www.nature.com
Dr Gilliland still in our employ ? Must be 12 months now. How much levy has that cost us ? Have just had a look at our 'publicity' material, still using GWP100, still using Poore Nemecek, still saying that livestock are responsible for more GHG emissions than air travel.
I told you muppets that he was a chancer. Oh no you said, he is going to bring about real change. WALOB.
I told you muppets that he was a chancer. Oh no you said, he is going to bring about real change. WALOB.
Without looking at that study in detail, it seems that it relies on ref 27 for its calculations. Looking at the Excel file within ref 27, it relies on modelling a pulse emission of methane/N20 so makes an erroneous assumption as its starting point sadly. As do so many of these studies that allegedly use GWP* (but use it wrongly).Not exactly on topic of thread so please redirect if somewhere more appropriate, or if study posted here before. Study published November last year on soil carbon sequestration's potential to offset constant ruminant methane emissions. Anyone read and have any thoughts?
Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions - Nature Communications
While accounting for intrinsic differences between short- and long-lived greenhouse gases, solely relying on soil carbon sequestration in grasslands to offset warming effect of emissions from current ruminant systems is not feasible
Farmed ruminants have essentially replaced wild ruminants over decades/centuries.
For me, it’s bad modelling (yawn), but also makes an odd assumption that ruminant methane can ever produce significant long-term warming. It assumes that ruminant methane MUST be mitigated/net zeroed. It assumes that ridding the planet of ruminants would be a good thing.
Presumably they’ve also done a study analysing methane emissions/carbon sequestration of wetlands alongside? And one on termites? And one on rain forests? Etc.@Nathan818 what do you think of it?Not exactly on topic of thread so please redirect if somewhere more appropriate, or if study posted here before. Study published November last year on soil carbon sequestration's potential to offset constant ruminant methane emissions. Anyone read and have any thoughts?
Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions - Nature Communications
While accounting for intrinsic differences between short- and long-lived greenhouse gases, solely relying on soil carbon sequestration in grasslands to offset warming effect of emissions from current ruminant systems is not feasible
- Location
- Co. Tyrone
I thought it was interesting to consider how sustained methane emissions can be offset by a pulse absorption of co2.
I'm aware that the general consensus seems to be that grassland cannot sequester carbon perpetually, which makes sense to me, improving grassland management will result in more co2 being sequestered and SOC increasing until it reaches a new equilibrium, but you can't just keep increasing SOC for ever. This paper helped me realise though that carbon doesn't need to be sequestered perpetually to offset sustained methane emissions. Although you then have the same argument as with GWP* about setting a starting point and hiding previous emissions, as I would imagine SOC is much lower now than it has been historically. The paper obviously makes a lot of simplifications like suggesting that carbon sequestration can happen as a pulse when in reality it occurs slowly over time until a new equilibrium is reached, but I don't that specific simplification really changes the logic which can be used to say one cancels out the other.
I would pretty much disregard all numbers they have calculated though for sequestration per hectare and carbon stores though, so would disagree on their conclusion. The carbon store data is calculated based on an arbitrary depth of 30cm which has no justification, so if you measured carbon stored to 1m for example then it would massively change their conclusion. The sequestration rates are just based on IPCC estimates as far as I can tell, and I just don't believe that they can possibly be accurate as they massively depend on the historical management of the land to determine how close they are to equilibrium and then the current management of the land to determine what the new equilibrium will be, which is not something that can be accurately represented by an international or national average.
As far as the use of the model you mention @DaveGrohl, I didn't look into it so hadn't considered it one way or the other. However the graphs included in the paper generated by that model looked reasonable to me as they tracked temperature change of the 3 GHGs under both continuous flow and pulse conditions.
I'm far from an expert in the field here and am genuinely just trying to decipher the research and understand how the mechanisms work myself so I would be interested in your thoughts.
I’m not an expert either, but I am quick to spot odd base assumptions. Too many of these papers are shot through with assumptions that make no sense. Honestly, I really can’t be bothered to try to digest this particular paper but I agree with everything you’ve mentioned. The 30cm part is exactly what I’m talking about. And promoting agriculture as an ongoing carbon sink is completely daft as you’ve said, it’s a flux.
Cattle methane cannot produce significant long-term warming and that’s that. End of. So a paper trying to work out whether grassland sequestration nets it out is pointless. I fear this particular paper interests you more than it does me. Sorry I can’t be any more help but I was certainly interested in what you have summarised.
Btw @Nathan818
@holwellcourtfarm had posted that study a while back but you maybe weren’t in on that convo. I thought I’d seen it before….
@holwellcourtfarm had posted that study a while back but you maybe weren’t in on that convo. I thought I’d seen it before….
Just parking this here before I lose it.
https://brc.org.uk/climate-roadmap/section-7-pathway-4-sourcing-sustainably/7-1-1-uk-agriculture/
Further evidence, if it were needed, that all of this is being driven by the cartel.
https://brc.org.uk/climate-roadmap/section-7-pathway-4-sourcing-sustainably/7-1-1-uk-agriculture/
Further evidence, if it were needed, that all of this is being driven by the cartel.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Thanks for that.
I note the NFU being quoted against us in that (from before they finally accepted GWP*
)Use Cogent semen and an ABP abattoir, and you too can cut the carbon hoofprint of your beef by 25%. WALOB.
https://www.foodanddrinktechnology....h-sainsburys-and-abp-for-reduced-carbon-beef/
https://www.foodanddrinktechnology....h-sainsburys-and-abp-for-reduced-carbon-beef/
The idea of a hoofprint for beef is utter nonsense given the structure of the inventory for national ghg emissions. And given methane estimation inaccuracies, double counting CO2 & methane, incorrect arbitrary multiplier systems, no one actually knows what the right CO2 eq figure is. So how could they ever calculate a % reduction in 'hoofprint' if they only count methane & fertiliser in ag, land, grass hedges etc in another sector and the number they are using as their start point is provably and demonstrably wrong in the first place?
Surely a cow only has a hoofprint if she's standing on something, no?
Surely a cow only has a hoofprint if she's standing on something, no?
- Location
- Derbys/Bucks.
https://gamechangerintegratedbeef.com/
I suppose it's great if all you want to be is an employee of The Cartel.
Funny isnt it how The Cartel are telling us that diversity in the ecosystem is what is missing in nature and destroying habitats, which is why they so desperately need the GFC.
Yet when it comes to the food system, autocratic control is essential for them to profit at the expense of everyone else.
If only they viewed the food system as part of the ecosystem.
@NadalineWebster
Indeed. This whole thread is about why the CO2-eq system is not fit for purpose. They’re still trying to weigh something by using a tape measure.
Interesting you mention the UK GHG Inventory. I’ll say it again;
UK livestock using the CO2 eq system totals 7% for 2019.
Using the correct measurement it’s 0.6%.
I do hope you’re not another of these strange new members with an agenda btw
Disturbingly from the same source;
www.farmersjournal.ie
People actually believe nonsense when they’re repeatedly drowned in it.
Almost 60% of people in favour of national herd cull - EPA survey
The EPA survey was conducted as part of the 'Climate Change in the Irish Mind' project.
People actually believe nonsense when they’re repeatedly drowned in it.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I wonder how the questions were phrased?Disturbingly from the same source;
Almost 60% of people in favour of national herd cull - EPA survey
The EPA survey was conducted as part of the 'Climate Change in the Irish Mind' project.
People actually believe nonsense when they’re repeatedly drowned in it.
For the avoidance of any doubt - I totally have an agenda!! I think farmers should be measured correctly (especially when science doesn't support current metrics) and not be penalised for harm they aren't doing.@NadalineWebster
Indeed. This whole thread is about why the CO2-eq system is not fit for purpose. They’re still trying to weigh something by using a tape measure.
Interesting you mention the UK GHG Inventory. I’ll say it again;
UK livestock using the CO2 eq system totals 7% for 2019.
Using the correct measurement it’s 0.6%.
I do hope you’re not another of these strange new members with an agenda btw
Ahhh, our beloved EPA. Who in Ireland are completely immune from prosecution or suit and receive many millions of taxpayer money and yet can't reliably operate a calculator.Disturbingly from the same source;
Almost 60% of people in favour of national herd cull - EPA survey
The EPA survey was conducted as part of the 'Climate Change in the Irish Mind' project.
People actually believe nonsense when they’re repeatedly drowned in it.