Or just maybe I would think “am I going about this the right way to take people with me on this, there seems to me few people in agreement with my approach”
Why is the NFU president going along with the idea that cattle are polluting the atmosphere??
- Thread starter Pilatus
- Start date
Suffolk Serf
Member
- Location
- Bury/Thetford
They seem to get criticised whatever they do.
Haven’t heard many pro UK farming comments quoted from any of the main players have you?
- Location
- Hertfordshire
TFF is also dominated by a few posters. For the past couple of years I’ve not had much spare time so have just dipped into the forum occasionally. It’s like Groundhog Day, the same people saying the same thing over and over and over….
If you dig into TFF there are some gems, and it’s a valuable resource for knowledge, but the opinion threads….jeez!
I sincerely hope that the NFU top table wouldn't hold that view. All criticism is constructive. If I held office, I would be more concerned about the apathy of the massed ranks who only pay their subs to get access to discounts, than those who show that they care.
The problem is the NFU are giving the impression that the reductions in carbon & methane they are quoting are achievable when in reality we all know they are not, even if they were it would be impossible to measure any improvement.
This the gives the green lobby the excuse to demand cuts in UK cattle numbers & cuts in support unless it involves a reduction in output that overseas producers will simply exploit!
wanton dwarf
Member
I understand the confusion about Cattle burps causing hotter temperatures, but TBH I don't get why anyone thinks any of these gases does anything of any relevance at all.
Look.
I really do not understand why so many of you have been hood winked.
100ppm of CO2 is supposed to give a 1 to 1.5 degree temperature rise. Supposedly this happens by thermal radiation being reflected back by CO2, Methane and Water Vapour.
100ppm is Fudge All in the atmosphere. It's 0.01% of a room. A normal sized living room, say 5 metres by 4 metres by 2 metres high. That's 40 cubic metres. Of that room 0.004 cubic metres represents 100ppm.
This is a box of the size 16cm by 16cm by 16cm. Full of CO2 in that room.
A typical indoor human occupied space has between 1000-2000ppm of CO2. A further 10 to 20 boxes. So according to Climate Change science allowing 1 degree per 100ppm, that room if exposed to sunlight should be 10 to 20 degrees hotter than without occupation.
I bet there would be no measurable difference.
If the room was stuffy it could be as much as 5000ppm of CO2, 50 degrees hotter.
If it was 100% of CO2 it would be 10,000 degrees !
That’s… a terrible analogy.
Rooms in homes are not sealed. Seal a room so that the CO2 stays that high and maybe you’d be able to see a difference. Depending on how well it is insulted and how much the windows reflect vs refract as well as what direction the windows point and what time of year it is.
The concentration in a room is highly dependent on the concentration outside and the concentration outside is very diffused throughout the entire atmosphere and it’s different layers.
Even with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rising and causing reflection, it’s also still overpowered by other factors, like seasons and the suns angle to the earth. It can cause warming but that doesn’t mean it causes it to be warm. A degree warmer here in winter is still -19C.
100% CO2 would cause other issues much more serious than the temperature. Like suffocation.
Last edited:
Northernlights
Member
- Location
- NE Scotland
In my local area there are about 60% less cattle on farms than there were in the sixties.When there are 60% less aircraft in the sky/vehicles on the road than in the sixties then I will listen to what they say about cattle .Cattle are not the problem in fact they will probably help to keep cereals grown without artificial fertiliser on red and white clover swards..My daughter who has a Phd in Astrophysics agrees with me
wanton dwarf
Member
How sad.
Yes you are correct, rooms are not sealed.
What exactly did you expect to happen to the CO2 your breathing out ? Look it up on the internet before you post. The figures quoted are from normal rooms.
If the room was sealed. Then the CO2 figure would climb until you are dead.
FFS
Last edited:
wanton dwarf
Member
100% CO2 would cause OTHER ISSUES ?
FFS ... 10,000 degrees is about 5 times hotter than an acetylene cutter. What planet are you people on ?
You do know we use CO2 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
Are you expecting the Earth to melt when you use one ?
10,000 degrees would probably instantaneously turn you to ash. You'd have no worries about breathing.
wanton dwarf
Member
If your house was filled with 100% CO2 at 10,000 degrees ?
It would be a red puddle. Just another reason I think Climate Change is a scam.
- Location
- Herefordshire
The NFU seem a little muddled on the issue of cattle and climate change and have come out with conflicting statements.
They need to come out with a bit of clarity and state their position in this debate.
wanton dwarf
Member
The whole farming industry has been led into the emissions trap,instead of talking about emissions we should have been talking about sequestration and carbon capture and our abilities to do both . Go on the offensive and publicise our green credentials ,put figures on how much carbon we are capturing per acre and get them out there . Talk positively , stop defending the negatives, emphasise the positives.
Sure. But how green is green?
Here farmers think they’re great because they’re use 4R, spread straw back on and are part of VBP+
In reality most of the programs and things majority of farmers do don’t make that big of an impact. For the most part they’re a list of conventional management practices, nothing terribly unique or environmentally friendly. They’re better than NOT doing them, of course, but are they enough? I wouldn’t say so.
Yes we’re land stewards, and yes we take care of a lot of environment. But in most cases it’s because we have to, or we get paid too. Nothing wrong with those reasons, but the idea that farming is really green gives the idea that farmers don’t need to do more. Farmers are in a unique position that they can do a LOT more.
Of course that’s true but what I am saying is that we have to change the dialogue from negatives to positives.
Absolutely. Most people think nothing in farming is positive, when they think about it at all!
It’s been my experience when people get passionate about something, they speak more about it. Farmers need to get passionate about the environment. Not just a “yeah we’re good for it, yeah we love it, we live with it every day” type responses. They need to get genuinely passionate and proud of what they do for the environment, not just for their farm. Even better if they’re a step above what’s the common level of environmental stewardship.
Look at Clarkson on his farm. He’s so passionate and proud of his rewilding! (Even though we can look at him planning it out and yell at the TV not to be a ninny and do it that way…!)
And that’s probably directly related to you saying be offensive, not defensive.
Don’t defensively say “I love the environment and do blah blah blah for it because I live amongst it.”
Be offensive and passionately share the ideas and techniques farmers are having and testing out to carve out little bits of environmentalism. Don’t worry about being thought of as a ninny.
But it’s hard to get passionate about something that we’re being told we’re doing wrong, badly, at every corner. Or getting laughed at for trying.
- Location
- Exeter, Devon
Playing devils advocate for a minute, the arguments put up against us will be on 2 main fronts.
The first one is totally disingenuous, citing rain forests being felled to produce cattle feed. We know it’s not true, but those who want to believe will not want to hear anything else.
The second is that even accepting that fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming, if mankind want to slow it down while finding alternative energy sources then all emissions need slowing. Ruminants produce methane and are therefore in the firing line. While methane only lasts a short while in the atmosphere, it doesn’t just disappear, the carbon forms carbon dioxide. Funny how rice production never gets a mention.
We need to make it clear that agriculture is the best placed industry to absorb carbon, especially grassland, but we can only do it with the aid of livestock.
The first one is totally disingenuous, citing rain forests being felled to produce cattle feed. We know it’s not true, but those who want to believe will not want to hear anything else.
The second is that even accepting that fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming, if mankind want to slow it down while finding alternative energy sources then all emissions need slowing. Ruminants produce methane and are therefore in the firing line. While methane only lasts a short while in the atmosphere, it doesn’t just disappear, the carbon forms carbon dioxide. Funny how rice production never gets a mention.
We need to make it clear that agriculture is the best placed industry to absorb carbon, especially grassland, but we can only do it with the aid of livestock.