Environmental benefits of livestock farming
- Thread starter delilah
- Start date
On mine now too!
- Location
- West Yorkshire
Loaded up myself to fb
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Me too and it's already getting shared.
A comment on my FB that it’s s bit difficult to read? I agree actually although the type can’t really be made bigger or it won’t fit, but maybe a different font? Also not sure that green on green is enough contrast? (Admittedly I find a lot of things difficult to read at my age!)
- Location
- Derbyshire
As with all things creative, I handed it over to my daughter.
Feel free to use it if you wish.
Don’t want to appear ‘picky’ because it’s fantastic but there are a few spelling issues that might want correcting before publishing.
Sorry...
JD-Kid
Member
- Location
- Akaroa.. New Zealand
done the same one here it was more to highlight areas that could be improved to lower. carbon waste than a tit for tat project
was intresting reading on were the main drivers of carbon use and waste come from
Yep, in a nutshell the beauty and the curse of this little project. We knocked it out in 36 hours from start to finish, at no cost other than maybe an hour sat at this thing. I just took the ideas provided on here by TFF members and formed the bullet points in my head whilst doing my lookering.
Those two versions are fantastic, as always there's room for improvement at the margins, keep playing with it, I am sure the TFF collective can come up with plenty more versions. Customize it for your own audience; overlay the words onto your favourite photo of your farm ?
The important thing for me now is to see if a way can be found for these resources to be readily accessible for future use; see my post in Community Feedback.
- Location
- Derbyshire
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
AHDB now miraculously on the case
https://www.facebook.com/AHDBBeefandLamb/videos/vb.147995635230328/408354126575962/?type=2&theater
https://www.facebook.com/AHDBBeefandLamb/videos/vb.147995635230328/408354126575962/?type=2&theater
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Some valid points posted here on an article about cutting beef consumption by 80%:
https://www.dietdoctor.com/report-c...IHzHhnYULGxpRvYz8QOYZ7MGxRlA#comment-12612607
4 comments
https://www.dietdoctor.com/report-c...IHzHhnYULGxpRvYz8QOYZ7MGxRlA#comment-12612607
4 comments
- 1
Scott Reeves
15 hours ago 2
Thanks for this informative article. I shall share links to it on Facebook and my blog joggingpop.wordpress.com .
A seemingly minor point in all of this is that Nature evolved environments based on perennial plants and animals interacting. Vegans seem to want to replace that with annual plants, using poison to kill all other life and leaving the land open to erosion in the off season.
Reply: #3 - 2
Lori Miller
14 hours ago 3
Bison roamed North America for eons, so of course what we need is...more fields of grain and soy, more pesticide, more fertilizer that depends on fossil fuel? Livestock grown on pastures seems more in tune with Mother Nature.
- 3
Reply to comment #1 by Scott Reeves
Cassieoz
5 hours ago
The absence of ruminant and carbon-farming scientists is bad enough but no-one is asking agronomists who understand the role of broadacre annual cropping in damaging ecosystems or the dependence of vegan-approved farming on fossil fuel based fertilisers (in the absence of animal manures).
- 4
Stefhan Gordon
3 minutes ago
Listening to the presentation, it was a little strange they were haranguing beef for soya. because ruminants generally aren't fed soya even in Brazil. Most of the meal in Brazil's soya goes to chicken in Brazil and pigs in China. All the soy oil goes to human uses especially as cooking oil and biofuel. Pretty much every fryer vat in restaurants around the world use soy bean oil to fry chips or fries as well as other fried foods. The soy bean oil crushing industry came long before the meal feed industry by 20 to 30 years. Beef in the US comes mainly from the US. Beef in Oz comes from Oz. EU is different where a lot of the beef is a by-product of the diary industry,
Cargill is now mainly a soya bean company. ADM, Bunge and Cargill are really destroying a lot of Cerrado and Amazon in Brazil for planting and to forms transportation paths to get soy to ports to ship to China. China consumes 70% of brazil's soya. Cargill is one of the funders in this EAT Forum project through the FreSH initiative. . Cargill is one of the largest investors in cultured stem cell proteins. Amino acids in cell media will come from industrially grown soy.
Nestle uses a lot of chicken meal, fish and soy meal in its various brands of pet foods like Purina Dog & Cat chows. Chicken and farmed fish are fed a lot of soy. Nestle is one of the funders of this project as well and is also getting more heavily into the plant based protein sector where it will have additional uses for soy isolates.
Unilever is another funder, and a huge user of soy bean oil in its various brands like "I can't believe it;s not butter". They've provided funding and even researchers to all the pro-polyunsaturated research that Walter Willett and the Harvard Chan school have done to prove the "heart healthfulness" of these hexane heat extracted easily oxidized inflammatory oils. High Omega 6's inhibit ALA to EPA to DHA conversion, so I guess everyone who follows this diet will need to supplement DHA pills along with B12 pills. or take fish/krill oil (which depletes ocean feed fish).
Bayer, which bought Monsanto, sells GMO seeds as well as agrochemicals as do BASF and Syngenta . BASF is a big producers of mutagenic rice and wheat varieties and their paired pesticides. So no wonder rice, wheat, corn and soy as well as seed and soy oils are still such a large part of this diet.
So lots of ironic bedfellows for a diet purporting to be 'sustainable."
Oh, and then the part about integrated systems instead of monocrops. Again more irony. since ruminants are the best animals to integrate to graze cover crops, and crop residues as well as cycle nutrients. Thus the well managed ruminants reduce or eliminate tillage and herbicide use plus also eliminate the need for NPK's. These researchers need to read Gabe Brown's new book Dirt to Soil and visit his farm if they want to see a system of farming that's truly regenerative. All these academicians are proposing is a system of food production that is trying to perpetuate a degraded system. Not much point in sustaining a degraded resource. You have to restore soil health, microbiology and ecosystems function to repair the carbon and water cycles as well as the geospheric methane sink
Don't think they had a single soil scientist on their team. How can you even have any discussion about food production without understanding soil ecosystems and how they function? .Soil scientists like Dr. David Johnson, Dr. Elaine Ingham, Dr. Kris Nichols, Dr. Christine Jones could teach this group of 36 a lot of things that were obviously overlooked in this report. So would Dr. David Montgomery, a geologist.
A better understanding of hydroxyl radical tropospheric sinks would also have been very useful since all they did was regurgitate reductive out of context false methane math Maybe next time they'll talk to Dr. Myles Allen, Dr. R.G. Prinn and Dr. Matthew Rigby.
Though the EAT Forum obviously is agenda driven rather than science driven. So, even Stevie Wonder can see that the real desire is simply to manufacture consent as well as a market and future market for the products that the funders sell now and will sell in the future.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
To those on FB there is an American FB page called Defending Beef
https://www.facebook.com/defendingbeef
https://www.facebook.com/defendingbeef
ShooTa
Member
- Location
- Denbighshire - In the vale of Clwyd!
do we have a reliable source for that carbon volume (388 tonnes) from the 150 acres?
lifted it from a post on page 2, Brisel will have the source.
- Location
- Yorks
If i understand it correctly, all soya bean meal is the byproduct from soya oil extraction.
SBM is a waste product, so what better use than to feed livestock.
If we didn't source oil from soya, then we would need it from some other source.
We could grow more palm oil instead.
SBM is a waste product, so what better use than to feed livestock.
If we didn't source oil from soya, then we would need it from some other source.
We could grow more palm oil instead.
Any advice for an idiot on how to find it on FB so that I can share it please?
Tarw Coch
Member
- Location
- Bottom of Wats Dyke
Look for the farming forum on Facebook, it was put up on their page yesterday.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Last edited:
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Another for @Tarw Coch
https://climatechangedispatch.com/n...aaTgePN5JPKcmqMZzQzY3Ru_-JGw4onyZtSjTl08XoP3Q
WRITTEN BY KENNETH RICHARD ON DECEMBER 3, 2018. POSTED IN CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT, GROUPTHINK, LATEST NEWS, SCIENCE
New Research: Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On The Climate
Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, has published research that shows “there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate” and the “warming potential of anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions has been exaggerated.”
Image Source: Glatzle, 2018
Glatzle, 2018
Domestic Livestock and Its Alleged Role in Climate Change
Abstract:
“Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors.
The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies.
Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems.
However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through the scientific literature.
Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.”
Key Points:
1. “In order to get the effective manmade part of the emissions from managed ecosystems, one has to subtract the baseline emissions of the respective native ecosystems or of the pre-climate-change-managed ecosystems from those of today’s agro-ecosystems (Figure 4). Omitting this correction leads to a systematic overestimation of farm-born non-CO2 GHG emissions. Scientific publications generally do not take this consideration into account, as farm-born CH4 and N2O emissions are consistently interpreted at a 100% level as an additional anthropogenic GHG source, just like fossil fuel-born CO2. As the mentioned IPCC guidelines [2007] are taken for the ultimate reference, this severe methodological deficiency propagated through the scientific literature.”
2. “Dung patches concentrate the nitrogen ingested from places scattered across the pasture. Nichols et al. [2016] found no significant differences between emission factors from the patches and the rest of the pasture, which means the same amount of nitrous oxide is emitted whether or not the herbage passes livestock’s intestines. However, the IPCC and FAO do consider mistakenly all nitrous oxide leaking from manure as livestock-born and therefore manmade.”
3. “Between 1990 and 2005, the world cattle population rose by more than 100 million head (according to FAO statistics). During this time, atmospheric methane concentration stabilized completely. These empirical observations show that livestock is not a significant player in the global methane budget [Glatzle, 2014]. This appreciation has been corroborated by Schwietzke et al. [2016] who suggested that methane emissions from fossil fuel industry and natural geological seepage have been 60–110% greater than previously thought.”
4. “When looking to the global distribution of average methane concentrations as measured by ENVISAT (Environmental Satellite) [Schneising et al., 2009] and the geographical distribution of domestic animal density, respectively [Steinfeld et al., 2006], no discernible relationship between both criteria was found [Glatzle, 2014].”
5. “Although the most recent estimates of yearly livestock-born global methane emissions came out 11% higher than earlier estimates [Wolf et al., 2017], we still cannot see any discernible livestock fingerprint in the global methane distribution(Figure 6).”
6. “The idea of a considerable livestock contribution to the global methane budget relies on theoretical bottom-up calculations. Even in recent studies, e.g., [Mapfumo et al., 2018], just the emissions per animal are measured and multiplied by the number of animals. Ecosystemic interactions and baselines over time and space are generally ignored [Glatzle, 2014]. Although quite a number of publications, such as the excellent most recent FCRN report (Food Climate Research Network) [2017], do discuss extensively ecosystemic sequestration potentials and natural sources of GHGs, they do not account for baseline emissions from the respective native ecosystems when assessing manmade emissions of non-CO2 GHGs from managed ecosystems. This implies a systematic overestimation of the warming potential, particularly when assuming considerable climate sensitivity to GHG emissions.”
7. “[W]e could not find a domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of the atmospheric methane concentration. Consequently, in science, politics, and the media, the climate impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been systematically overstated. Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”
8. “[E]ven LA Chefs Column [Zwick, 2018], in spite of assuming a major global warming impact of methane, came to the conclusion: ‘When methane is put into a broader rather than a reductive context, we all have to stop blaming cattle (‘cows’) for climate change.’”
https://climatechangedispatch.com/n...aaTgePN5JPKcmqMZzQzY3Ru_-JGw4onyZtSjTl08XoP3Q
WRITTEN BY KENNETH RICHARD ON DECEMBER 3, 2018. POSTED IN CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT, GROUPTHINK, LATEST NEWS, SCIENCE
New Research: Methane Emissions From Livestock Have No Detectable Effect On The Climate
Agrobiologist and scientific researcher Dr. Albrecht Glatzle, author of over 100 scientific papers and two textbooks, has published research that shows “there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate” and the “warming potential of anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions has been exaggerated.”
Image Source: Glatzle, 2018
Glatzle, 2018
Domestic Livestock and Its Alleged Role in Climate Change
Abstract:
“Our key conclusion is there is no need for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and even less so for livestock-born emissions, to explain climate change. Climate has always been changing, and even the present warming is most likely driven by natural factors.
The warming potential of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been exaggerated, and the beneficial impacts of manmade CO2 emissions for nature, agriculture, and global food security have been systematically suppressed, ignored, or at least downplayed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and other UN (United Nations) agencies.
Furthermore, we expose important methodological deficiencies in IPCC and FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) instructions and applications for the quantification of the manmade part of non-CO2-GHG emissions from agro-ecosystems.
However, so far, these fatal errors inexorably propagated through the scientific literature.
Finally, we could not find a clear domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of mean atmospheric methane concentration.”
Key Points:
1. “In order to get the effective manmade part of the emissions from managed ecosystems, one has to subtract the baseline emissions of the respective native ecosystems or of the pre-climate-change-managed ecosystems from those of today’s agro-ecosystems (Figure 4). Omitting this correction leads to a systematic overestimation of farm-born non-CO2 GHG emissions. Scientific publications generally do not take this consideration into account, as farm-born CH4 and N2O emissions are consistently interpreted at a 100% level as an additional anthropogenic GHG source, just like fossil fuel-born CO2. As the mentioned IPCC guidelines [2007] are taken for the ultimate reference, this severe methodological deficiency propagated through the scientific literature.”
2. “Dung patches concentrate the nitrogen ingested from places scattered across the pasture. Nichols et al. [2016] found no significant differences between emission factors from the patches and the rest of the pasture, which means the same amount of nitrous oxide is emitted whether or not the herbage passes livestock’s intestines. However, the IPCC and FAO do consider mistakenly all nitrous oxide leaking from manure as livestock-born and therefore manmade.”
3. “Between 1990 and 2005, the world cattle population rose by more than 100 million head (according to FAO statistics). During this time, atmospheric methane concentration stabilized completely. These empirical observations show that livestock is not a significant player in the global methane budget [Glatzle, 2014]. This appreciation has been corroborated by Schwietzke et al. [2016] who suggested that methane emissions from fossil fuel industry and natural geological seepage have been 60–110% greater than previously thought.”
4. “When looking to the global distribution of average methane concentrations as measured by ENVISAT (Environmental Satellite) [Schneising et al., 2009] and the geographical distribution of domestic animal density, respectively [Steinfeld et al., 2006], no discernible relationship between both criteria was found [Glatzle, 2014].”
5. “Although the most recent estimates of yearly livestock-born global methane emissions came out 11% higher than earlier estimates [Wolf et al., 2017], we still cannot see any discernible livestock fingerprint in the global methane distribution(Figure 6).”
6. “The idea of a considerable livestock contribution to the global methane budget relies on theoretical bottom-up calculations. Even in recent studies, e.g., [Mapfumo et al., 2018], just the emissions per animal are measured and multiplied by the number of animals. Ecosystemic interactions and baselines over time and space are generally ignored [Glatzle, 2014]. Although quite a number of publications, such as the excellent most recent FCRN report (Food Climate Research Network) [2017], do discuss extensively ecosystemic sequestration potentials and natural sources of GHGs, they do not account for baseline emissions from the respective native ecosystems when assessing manmade emissions of non-CO2 GHGs from managed ecosystems. This implies a systematic overestimation of the warming potential, particularly when assuming considerable climate sensitivity to GHG emissions.”
7. “[W]e could not find a domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of the atmospheric methane concentration. Consequently, in science, politics, and the media, the climate impact of anthropogenic GHG emissions has been systematically overstated. Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.”
8. “[E]ven LA Chefs Column [Zwick, 2018], in spite of assuming a major global warming impact of methane, came to the conclusion: ‘When methane is put into a broader rather than a reductive context, we all have to stop blaming cattle (‘cows’) for climate change.’”
Last edited: