Methane

holwellcourtfarm · Apr 21, 2024

delilah said:
So they are on the way then. Which allies with the consensus on here. Methane as belched by cows is a contributor to man made climate change, and as such is a legitimate target for man made solutions. I fail to see what anyone has to complain about.

They are coming,yes.

I don't think anyone can work out what to do about grazing stock though. The effect of the feed additives lasts under 24 hours so they must be fed daily. That works for dairy and indoor beef but.......

In not against reducing ruminant methane. However, doing so has the same effect on climate temperature as taking CO2 out of the air, albeit only for about 12 years. That's about equivalent to commercial forestry, which can claim carbon payments so who's going to pay us for doing it?

I'm still waiting for my government money for selling my herd in 2022 /23 BTW. I must be deeply carbon negative for the next 10 years

delilah · Apr 21, 2024

holwellcourtfarm said:
They are coming,yes.

I don't think anyone can work out what to do about grazing stock though. The effect of the feed additives lasts under 24 hours so they must be fed daily. That works for dairy and indoor beef but.......

In not against reducing ruminant methane. However, doing so has the same effect on climate temperature as taking CO2 out of the air, albeit only for about 12 years. That's about equivalent to commercial forestry, which can claim carbon payments so who's going to pay us for doing it?

I'm still waiting for my government money for selling my herd in 2022 /23 BTW. I must be deeply carbon negative for the next 10 years

So lets get this straight then.

I started this thread because I was labouring under the impression that farmers didn't want to be told to interfere with their cows natural digestive system, to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

You, and other eminent, far cleverer than me, farmers gave that OP various sad/angry faces. For the last three years there have been 47 pages of bellyaching.

And now you are telling us that you aren't against reducing ruminant methane ?

How absolutely typical of this industry. Moan like f@ck yet when it comes to it bend over and be shafted.

delilah · Apr 21, 2024

And before anyone tells me to calm down, bollox to that. I have earned the right to be angry. Attached my submission to this House of Lords inquiry. Anyone else who wants to share their submission, fine, have a go at me. Otherwise i'm not interested. Muppets.

holwellcourtfarm · Apr 21, 2024

Challenge accepted

View attachment HoL TFFGG Methane Inquiry Evidence.docx

holwellcourtfarm · Apr 21, 2024

I don't remember (but might be wrong) ever saying I don't want to be told what to do.

Just that if we are to help society out of a hole by cutting ruminant methane when our cows aren't adding to warming then we must be paid for doing it like all the other offsetting money grabbers.

View attachment 1177405

delilah · Apr 21, 2024

So it is the advice of the TFF grassroots group to Government that farmers are happy to medicate their cows feed so long as they are paid to do so.

If we went back through this and the other relevant threads, we would find the members of that group repeatedly making the point that:

a) It wont be a payment for compliance, it will be a penalty for non-compliance. A penalty that will stretch right from 1ppl docked off your milk price right the way through to having to find a new milk buyer.

b) It isn't about the money. It is about control. And data. And placing of the blame. Ready for future punitive measures. Because if it is the cows fault then no way will it stop at medicated feed.

So what has changed ? Why now embrace - on behalf of everyone on here by dint of the name - stuff that has repeatedly been called out for the bollox that it is ? Brown envelope from the cartel ? Irish gift of gab from the Prof ?

holwellcourtfarm · Apr 21, 2024

delilah said:
So it is the advice of the TFF grassroots group to Government that farmers are happy to medicate their cows feed so long as they are paid to do so.

If we went back through this and the other relevant threads, we would find the members of that group repeatedly making the point that:

a) It wont be a payment for compliance, it will be a penalty for non-compliance. A penalty that will stretch right from 1ppl docked off your milk price right the way through to having to find a new milk buyer.

b) It isn't about the money. It is about control. And data. And placing of the blame. Ready for future punitive measures. Because if it is the cows fault then no way will it stop at medicated feed.

So what has changed ? Why now embrace - on behalf of everyone on here by dint of the name - stuff that has repeatedly been called out for the bollox that it is ? Brown envelope from the cartel ? Irish gift of gab from the Prof ?

We only speak for our group, named in our submission, and you know that.

You're intentionally misrepresenting our comments and submission.

And saying "Livestock simply need to be excluded from any policy decisions regarding climate change" is naive in the extreme in my view. We may well be ignored anyway but we will be ignored out of hand unless we attempt to engage with their narrative IMHO.

delilah · Apr 21, 2024

holwellcourtfarm said:
We only speak for our group, named in our submission, and you know that.

So far as the HoL and anyone reading it when it is published are concerned it's the TFF submission, and by extension the views of grassroots farmers.

holwellcourtfarm said:
You're intentionally misrepresenting our comments and submission.

No I am not. It supports the 'reduction' of enteric methane via a range of farmer measures (read costs).

holwellcourtfarm said:
And saying "Livestock simply need to be excluded from any policy decisions regarding climate change" is naive in the extreme in my view. We may well be ignored anyway but we will be ignored out of hand unless we attempt to engage with their narrative IMHO.

Nope. What is 'naive in the extreme' is thinking that:
a) Farmers will be financially better off by agreeing to this.
b) It will stop at this.

We either reject the notion that enteric methane has to be addressed, or we embrace it. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

SteveHants · Apr 21, 2024

Its fine - just feed them grass.

See: https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/the-best-additive-to-reduce-methane-is-high-quality-grass/

delilah · Apr 21, 2024

SteveHants said:
Its fine - just feed them grass.

See: https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/the-best-additive-to-reduce-methane-is-high-quality-grass/

I see the chap said that at an ABP event.

Strange then that the major ABP funded research project on ways to cut enteric methane - to be supervised by the omnipresent Dr Capper - makes no mention of it as an option:

https://www.harper-adams.ac.uk/research/project/2353/abp-prism-2030

reducing cattle age at slaughter, improving livestock health, utilising supplements that cut enteric methane emissions and meeting ABP specifications for finished animals.

But then, the research project isn't concerned with promoting the idea that the cow is best left to her own devices, because that would fly against the real purpose of the exercise: apportioning blame, keeping the focus on it all being the fault of the cow, to maintain this lie:

At ABP, 90% of the footprint of meat and dairy resides at farm level, therefore there is significant interest in both quantifying ABP’s on-farm (scope III) emissions

delilah · Apr 21, 2024

SteveHants said:
Its fine - just feed them grass.

See: https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/the-best-additive-to-reduce-methane-is-high-quality-grass/

Anyway, too late, the farmers have told Government that they need to come indoors and be fed their daily meds.

holwellcourtfarm · Apr 22, 2024

Question from the chair and response from Dave Frame in 17th April evidence session

onesiedale · Apr 22, 2024

interesting to hear that the Prof stated the Paris agreement was all about temperature targets. However, the policy makers worldwide, have chosen Net Zero to be all about emissions targets
Focussing on emissions is never going to work as emissions dont actually generate warming, where as burning something will, by default, generate heat .

Who could possibly persuade the policy makers to set the wrong targets?

delilah · Apr 22, 2024

holwellcourtfarm said:
Question from the chair and response from Dave Frame in 17th April evidence session

And ?

This isn't some PhD seminar, debating scientific approaches.

It is a farming forum. What matters to folks on here is what they will or wont be told to do. Government has been told by the farmers that medicated feed is fine. What more is there to discuss ?

holwellcourtfarm · Apr 22, 2024

onesiedale said:
interesting to hear that the Prof stated the Paris agreement was all about temperature targets. However, the policy makers worldwide, have chosen Net Zero to be all about emissions targets
Focussing on emissions is never going to work as emissions dont actually generate warming, where as burning something will, by default, generate heat .

Who could possibly persuade the policy makers to set the wrong targets?

"We follow the science"......

Yeah, right

onesiedale · Apr 22, 2024

delilah said:
And ?

This isn't some PhD seminar, debating scientific approaches.

It is a farming forum. What matters to folks on here is what they will or wont be told to do. Government has been told by the farmers that medicated feed is fine. What more is there to discuss ?

I think you will find that very rew, if any, farmers have told govt. that it is ok to use medicated feed to suppress methane emissions. Farmers representatives on the other hand.....

DaveGrohl · Apr 22, 2024

holwellcourtfarm said:
"We follow the science"......

Yeah, right

We follow the ~~science~~ advice we’re given by people who remain shady…..

holwellcourtfarm · Apr 23, 2024

delilah said:
And ?

This isn't some PhD seminar, debating scientific approaches.

It is a farming forum. What matters to folks on here is what they will or wont be told to do. Government has been told by the farmers that medicated feed is fine. What more is there to discuss ?

Same old misrepresenting others..

NFU certainly seem to support farmers being told to feed methane abatement supplements. Your almost think they were being sponsored by them!

We've raised various concerns (who they really benefit, who pays for them, how long they need using for, whether ruminant methane should actually be a major target etc).

Some farmers DO support it fully, mostly seems to be the intensive indoor ones.

delilah · Apr 23, 2024

holwellcourtfarm said:
Same old misrepresenting others..

NFU certainly seem to support farmers being told to feed methane abatement supplements. Your almost think they were being sponsored by them!

We've raised various concerns (who they really benefit, who pays for them, how long they need using for, whether ruminant methane should actually be a major target etc).

Some farmers DO support it fully, mostly seems to be the intensive indoor ones.

delilah said:
Government has been told by the farmers that medicated feed is fine. What more is there to discuss ?

Like I said, nothing more to discuss.

BrianV · Apr 23, 2024

No mater what we do things like this will show we are wasting our bloody time & money!

Daily Mail

Burning 'Ghazipur' garbage mountain covers India's capital

watch

Not the first time either.

Toxic fumes fill Delhi’s skies after vast landfill site catches fire

This article is more than 2 years old
Blaze at 65-metre high ‘mountain of shame’ in Ghazipur still not completely put out
delhi-landfill-fire-toxic-fumes

Methane

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Burning 'Ghazipur' garbage mountain covers India's capital​

Toxic fumes fill Delhi’s skies after vast landfill site catches fire​

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page

Burning 'Ghazipur' garbage mountain covers India's capital

Toxic fumes fill Delhi’s skies after vast landfill site catches fire