Search results

Govt has changed massively since those days of free enterprise. Interference and distortion is how it works now.

Water. And adaptation. Everything else is people just looking busy.

Well that’s fair cheered me up today. Rseholes the lot of them. In every country. It’s all just a fekking illusion, with vast amounts of money going round.

Only about 25 acres out of 100 are anything like allowing to continue (and just see how they do). They’ll be wholecrop too. Got around 150 acres to do something with. S barley has always done well as a wholecrop in the past but last couple of years has been poor to shocking. SFI might be an...

Didn’t know spring triticale was a thing :oops:

Not a hope.

We sell it to local farms as a dairy feed.

We’ve always grown s barley for wholecrop, but last year‘s efforts were horrendous. Sodding wet spring (after dusty Feb/March), followed on by many weeks of no rain. Barley got sown late, established then gasped for water. None of it managed to get over 12 inches high. This year’s heading the...

We’ve always grown s barley for wholecrop, but last year‘s efforts were horrendous. Sodding wet spring (after dusty Feb/March), followed on by many weeks of no rain. Barley got sown late, established then gasped for water. None of it managed to get over 12 inches high. This year’s heading the...

Show off.

Agreed, but difference being, those other alterations are independent decisions based on commercial factors by individual farmers. There is zero commercial factor here unless farmers are paid handsomely for services to the planet. Who will be willing to pay this tariff forever? No one. The...

Drones. Simples.

That’s the issue in a nutshell. By using it, we’re all admitting guilt and that there actually is "a problem". Farmers should be paid handsomely if they choose to do it at all, not forced over a barrel without lube, which is exactly how this will pan out. Of all the problems around the climate...

Jesus wept :banghead: Science based you say?

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.

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...

47% wouldn’t starve to death. Quite a few might eat a bit less. Would that be a bad thing? (Only half joking)

Here you go. Final table completely misses the point that every single carbon atom dug up will increase warming, which simply isn’t the case with cattle methane.

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...

SBTi you say? They can‘t even agree amongst themselves, never mind what the actual valid "science" is. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/companies-get-green-light-use-offsets-supply-chain-emissions-2024-04-10/R