Arla

farmer on a bike

farmer on a bike

Member
DaveGrohl said:
Odd use of the words unintended and issues. It’s simply a far better way to measure actual warming impact rather than "emissions" which does no such thing, it’s a proxy which doesn’t actually work as such. You perhaps meant to phrase that better?

I see what you’re saying about fossil methane, although fossil and biogenic methane have different warming values which take into account where the CO2 ends up. The AHDB eventually managed to do some calculations after an almighty prod from some of us, and created a monster doing what you‘re pointing to. They showed that fossil and landfill reductions have massively reduced our national footprint, creating idiotic numbers. Ghey were supposed to show how benign UK ruminants are but completely ballsed it up.
Click to expand...
I’m sure my wording isn’t perfect, by unintended I mean that a farm increasing cow numbers from 100 to 103 cows would roughly double it’s predicted warming impact from enteric methane compared to GWP100 as a business in that year under GWP*, 6 extra cows would treble it and 9 extra quadruple it as i understand it. This seems crazy as we know it is biogenic methane and should just be ignored.

As a total industry that gradually reduces cow numbers for similar milk production the result of GWP* seems fine, but not on an individual business basis and I not sure how you sort that anomaly.

Thanks for pulling up the AHDB piece as it does confirm I have understood the issue correctly.
 
H

Homesy

Member
Location
North West Devon
farmer on a bike said:
I’m sure my wording isn’t perfect, by unintended I mean that a farm increasing cow numbers from 100 to 103 cows would roughly double it’s predicted warming impact from enteric methane compared to GWP100 as a business in that year under GWP*, 6 extra cows would treble it and 9 extra quadruple it as i understand it. This seems crazy as we know it is biogenic methane and should just be ignored.

As a total industry that gradually reduces cow numbers for similar milk production the result of GWP* seems fine, but not on an individual business basis and I not sure how you sort that anomaly.

Thanks for pulling up the AHDB piece as it does confirm I have understood the issue correctly.
Click to expand...
If that's the the case , why has ARLA , a co-operative, signed up to this nonsense ?
If the dairy industry has to reduce emissions then the co-op's members have to reduce cow numbers. Suicide.
 
B

bar718

Member
Homesy said:
If that's the the case , why has ARLA , a co-operative, signed up to this nonsense ?
If the dairy industry has to reduce emissions then the co-op's members have to reduce cow numbers. Suicide.
Click to expand...
It hasn’t. That is one of the differences between GWP and GWP* . The unit of measurement is not chosen by Arla and nor can Arla cherry pick which parts it wants to use from either measuring system but the example that farmer on a bike makes is an unintended consequence of GWP* which is not as of yet a used.
 
farmer on a bike

farmer on a bike

Member
Homesy said:
If that's the the case , why has ARLA , a co-operative, signed up to this nonsense ?
If the dairy industry has to reduce emissions then the co-op's members have to reduce cow numbers. Suicide.
Click to expand...
Sorry but you are misunderstanding the point. Arla like all businesses uses SBTi and the GHG protocols which currently use the GWP100 metric not GWP*. The last couple of posts I have made relate to why the GWP* metric has issues as well as benefits if everyone changed to that.

The whole point of what Arla is doing is to try and show we are reducing emissions to avoid governments trying to legislate or tax to force cow number reduction. We are not trying to commit suicide rather to avoid being murdered.

The Danish government has suggested taxes of €1000/cow to reduce emission, Arla are pointing out that we can show we are on target to reduce emissions to the Danish government target without any need to tax and we hope we can win this argument. Things like the Lords committee on Methane could result in similar stupidity here if we don’t state our case.
 
Last edited:
D

delilah

Member
farmer on a bike said:
Things like the Lords committee on Methane could result in similar stupidity here if we don’t state our case.
Click to expand...

Yet you have shared nothing on here - from yourself or from Arla - to show how you are stating your case. It is negligent on Arla to have done nothing to encourage its member producers to make a submission.
 
D

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
farmer on a bike said:
I’m sure my wording isn’t perfect, by unintended I mean that a farm increasing cow numbers from 100 to 103 cows would roughly double it’s predicted warming impact from enteric methane compared to GWP100 as a business in that year under GWP*, 6 extra cows would treble it and 9 extra quadruple it as i understand it. This seems crazy as we know it is biogenic methane and should just be ignored.

As a total industry that gradually reduces cow numbers for similar milk production the result of GWP* seems fine, but not on an individual business basis and I not sure how you sort that anomaly.

Thanks for pulling up the AHDB piece as it does confirm I have understood the issue correctly.
Click to expand...
No argument with the point you’ve made there, you do understand it correctly. But it shouldn’t be on an individual basis. At all.

A farm adding 3 cows is probably doing so because another farm has gone out of milk, certainly is the case in the UK. Why tf should the guy putting on 3 extra be penalised/held accountable when he’s not actually increasing warming in any way if we’re honest? Could justifiably argue that the guy going out of milk should receive a mahoosive cheque for reducing warming, so there’s that…

And, of course, the increases over GWP100 only occurs for a relatively short period of time, but they all seem to be using 20 years as a basis for all these calculations which is part of the problem. Removing every farmed ruminant from the planet would only reduce warming by < 0.1 degC. And fleetingly at that. And not accounting for the increased warming due to unintended consequences. GWP100 is trying to weigh something with a ruler, GWP* is simply the correct tool. Don’t fear it.
 
D

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Homesy said:
If that's the the case , why has ARLA , a co-operative, signed up to this nonsense ?
If the dairy industry has to reduce emissions then the co-op's members have to reduce cow numbers. Suicide.
Click to expand...
Methane feed additives. No need to reduce numbers. But we have to use these forever and ever, and hang the microbiology/soil consequences, for it to make any sense. Which it doesn’t.
 
D

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
farmer on a bike said:
Sorry but you are misunderstanding the point. Arla like all businesses uses SBTi and the GHG protocols which currently use the GWP100 metric not GWP*. The last couple of posts I have made relate to why the GWP* metric has issues as well as benefits if everyone changed to that.

The whole point of what Arla is doing is to try and show we are reducing emissions to avoid governments trying to legislate or tax to force cow number reduction. We are not trying to commit suicide rather to avoid being murdered.

The Danish government has suggested taxes of €1000/cow to reduce emission, Arla are pointing out that we can show we are on target to reduce emissions to the Danish government target without any need to tax and we hope we can win this argument. Things like the Lords committee on Methane could result in similar stupidity here if we don’t state our case.
Click to expand...
Jesus wept :banghead:
Science based you say?
 
D

delilah

Member
DaveGrohl said:
Methane feed additives. No need to reduce numbers. But we have to use these forever and ever, and hang the microbiology/soil consequences, for it to make any sense. Which it doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the horrendous negative publicity. How long before there's a red top story along the lines of 'farmers are medicating their cows feed, and we all know what happened the last time farmers messed about with their cows diet, for anyone who has forgotten here's a photo of a mad cow'. All to address a problem that doesn't exist.
 
D

delilah

Member
DaveGrohl said:
No argument with the point you’ve made there, you do understand it correctly. But it shouldn’t be on an individual basis. At all.

A farm adding 3 cows is probably doing so because another farm has gone out of milk, certainly is the case in the UK. Why tf should the guy putting on 3 extra be penalised/held accountable when he’s not actually increasing warming in any way if we’re honest? Could justifiably argue that the guy going out of milk should receive a mahoosive cheque for reducing warming, so there’s that…

And, of course, the increases over GWP100 only occurs for a relatively short period of time, but they all seem to be using 20 years as a basis for all these calculations which is part of the problem. Removing every farmed ruminant from the planet would only reduce warming by < 0.1 degC. And fleetingly at that. And not accounting for the increased warming due to unintended consequences. GWP100 is trying to weigh something with a ruler, GWP* is simply the correct tool. Don’t fear it.
Click to expand...

You really do need to put some of your last few posts into a half dozen bullet points for folks on here to use as a submission to the Lords enquiry.
 
farmer on a bike

farmer on a bike

Member
delilah said:
Yet you have shared nothing on here - from yourself or from Arla - to show how you are stating your case. It is negligent on Arla to have done nothing to encourage its member producers to make a submission.
Click to expand...
I think I have been pretty clear that Arla’s case to government could be summarised as “we are taking action, let us get on with it”, (presumably with explanation). I hope we also remind government that counting biogenic/enteric methane from cows is a nonsense.
On point 2, maybe Arla should, but I am not convinced bodies like this committee will take any notice of multiple farmer submissions just as I expect the consultation on bTB will ignore multiple submissions solicited by the Badger Trust. On reflection, from my personal view, I think the call to arms comes when the threat is stronger. So I do not accept that Arla is negligent.

I feel we are now going round in circles, as I think this post repeats my previous ones in different words.
 
D

delilah

Member
farmer on a bike said:
I think I have been pretty clear that Arla’s case to government could be summarised as “we are taking action, let us get on with it”, (presumably with explanation). I hope we also remind government that counting biogenic/enteric methane from cows is a nonsense.
Click to expand...

So do you want to accept my wager ? Tenner to RABI says Arla have made no submission.
 
farmer on a bike

farmer on a bike

Member
delilah said:
As of this weeks news story, M & S are making their dairy farmers use the Bovaer stuff. How much stronger do you feel the threat should be ?
Click to expand...
If customers want to pay for Bovaer then it is their choice, but they must pay for it. It seems a likely solution in Denmark. How M&S square grazing cows where Bovear currently cannot be fed with this I don’t know. That threat has been around since DSM begun trials.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 107 39.9%

  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 98 36.6%

  • 25-50%

    Votes: 40 14.9%

  • 50-75%

    Votes: 5 1.9%

  • 75-100%

    Votes: 4 1.5%

  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 14 5.2%
See comments…

May Event: The most profitable farm diversification strategy 2024 - Mobile Data Centres

Apr 02
  • 2,575
  • 49
With just a internet connection and a plug socket you too can join over 70 farms currently earning up to £1.27 ppkw ~ 201% ROI

Register Here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-mo...2024-mobile-data-centres-tickets-871045770347

Tuesday, May 21 · 10am - 2pm GMT+1

Location: Village Hotel Bury, Rochdale Road, Bury, BL9 7BQ

The Farming Forum has teamed up with the award winning hardware manufacturer Easy Compute to bring you an educational talk about how AI and blockchain technology is helping farmers to diversify their land.

Over the past 7 years, Easy Compute have been working with farmers, agricultural businesses, and renewable energy farms all across the UK to help turn leftover space into mini data centres. With...
News
Continue…

Share this page

Top