Alarming aspirations from latest climate report...

[Jackov Altraids]

I've found this further analysis of the data in the Poore and Nemecek report. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane

It sets out that: methane’s shorter lifetime means that the usual CO2-equivalence does not reflect how it affects global temperatures. So CO2eq footprints of foods which generate a high proportion of methane emissions – mainly beef and lamb – don’t by definition reflect their short-term or long-term impact on temperature.... and asks the question "Do these measurement issues matter for the carbon footprint of different foods? Are the large differences only because of methane?"

So, in effect, it splits out the effect of methane emissions.. I've wanted to see that for a long time. Disappointingly, it still leaves ruminant products way out front on emissions.

It goes on to say: Where do the non-methane emissions from cattle and lamb come from? For most producers the key emissions sources are due land use changes; the conversion of peat soils to agriculture; the land required to grow animal feed; the pasture management (including liming, fertilizing, and irrigation); and the emissions from slaughter waste.

All the more reason to keep asking for the detail on the data for land use change, on the data for apportioning animal feed. And I still really want to see the UK specific data. Time to start emailing Joseph Poore again.


View attachment 953365

Thanks.

I find it rather hard to understand why land use changes and fertiliser/ irrigation should be so much worse for livestock than crops.....

It becomes increasingly evident that every environmental report is manipulated to fit the narrative that the writer wish to pursue.
There is very little consistency with how things are evaluated and consequences/ implications are rarely considered.
In recent times we have come to understand 'efficient' to mean maximum output with minimal input in terms of £'s. In reality we should see efficiency in the terms of physics where we try to achieve a minimum amount of lost energy/ resource.
The modern obsession with intensification and specialisation is the root of many problems.
A small, fully integrated farming system where the animals produce the fertiliser to produce the crops etc. is the best and most sustainable system there is. It's efficiency is over 100% as it can be self sustaining while having extra to sell.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

Thanks.

I find it rather hard to understand why land use changes and fertiliser/ irrigation should be so much worse for livestock than crops.....

It becomes increasingly evident that every environmental report is manipulated to fit the narrative that the writer wish to pursue.
There is very little consistency with how things are evaluated and consequences/ implications are rarely considered.
In recent times we have come to understand 'efficient' to mean maximum output with minimal input in terms of £'s. In reality we should see efficiency in the terms of physics where we try to achieve a minimum amount of lost energy/ resource.
The modern obsession with intensification and specialisation is the root of many problems.
A small, fully integrated farming system where the animals produce the fertiliser to produce the crops etc. is the best and most sustainable system there is. It's efficiency is over 100% as it can be self sustaining while having extra to sell.

I think the difference between crops and livestock is the difference in production levels. So the perceived carbon cost is spread over far fewer kilos of lamb or beef, compared to wheat or oats.

I still don't think enough has been made of the difference between carbon loss from intensively cultivated and fertilised cropping land and well managed pasture with fewer or no inputs.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I think the difference between crops and livestock is the difference in production levels. So the perceived carbon cost is spread over far fewer kilos of lamb or beef, compared to wheat or oats.

There is so much "cherry picking" of metric used:
Per kilo produced
Per hectare
Per country

Each tells us something different but not necessarily comparable. A clear example is the constant omission of recognition that much grazing land is just not economic to grow food crops on. Also the value of the low spec food crop output which is pushed into livestock feed should instead be counted against the original crop, not against the livestock that remove the problem. If the UK had no livestock what would happen to all the wheat and barley that failed milling/malting spec? AD? That's be perverse!

It's never as simple as made out in these comparisons.

I still don't think enough has been made of the difference between carbon loss from intensively cultivated and fertilised cropping land and well managed pasture with fewer or no inputs.

These are still global averages hiding a wide range. They also make no allowance for carbon sequestration in grazing systems.

 

[DaveGrohl]

[QUOTE="Humble Village Farmer, post: 7509118, member: 142541"I still don't think enough has been made of the difference between carbon loss from intensively cultivated and fertilised cropping land and well managed pasture with fewer or no inputs.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed, it's like saying a nuclear power plant only costs what it takes to build and operate, while ignoring the decommissioning and disposal costs in the calculation. If you're slowly destroying the soil then it's not sustainable. But then why would they include that when it undermines their position?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I think the difference between crops and livestock is the difference in production levels. So the perceived carbon cost is spread over far fewer kilos of lamb or beef, compared to wheat or oats.

I still don't think enough has been made of the difference between carbon loss from intensively cultivated and fertilised cropping land and well managed pasture with fewer or no inputs.

I guess that might be the case but that fails to appreciate that in many cases livestock grazing are an addition to a 'natural' environment and not replacing it as a plant does.
A sheep in a field is part of the whole field ecosystem. A field of crops will not sustain flora and fauna the same way. Especially large scale cropping where nature can't permeate such large areas regularly harvested.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I guess that might be the case but that fails to appreciate that in many cases livestock grazing are an addition to a 'natural' environment and not replacing it as a plant does.
A sheep in a field is part of the whole field ecosystem. A field of crops will not sustain flora and fauna the same way. Especially large scale cropping where nature can't permeate such large areas regularly harvested.

Exactly, how can an "ecosystem" have no animals in it and still be called an ecosystem?

 

[white_stuffed]

Some more Our world in data analysis, this time about soy.

https://ourworldindata.org/soy#more-than-three-quarters-of-global-soy-is-fed-to-animals
There's a rather simplistic outlook in this explanation. It compares soy used for direct human consumption vs used for animal feed by only looking at volumes/percentages and ignoring relative £values of soy products. However, the explanation which it links to (below) is a lot more balanced on this. It is also more balanced on the blurred lines about deforestation (apparently driven by demand for pasture for beef production; but indirectly the soy demand is driving the pasture land increases).

Soy: food, feed, and land use change

The global growth in the production of soy and its use for different types of foods has been, and continues to be, a major contributor to land use change in the Amazon and other regions in South America. This building block explores the connections between soy, land use change, and discussions...

www.tabledebates.org

 

[white_stuffed]

This one is about the proportion of cropland use across human diets vs animal feed.

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares

If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.

ourworldindata.org

(it has also got the source for the allocations which I'll look into and try to get my head around, just more FAOSTAT datasets)

 

[white_stuffed]

I think I may have put this one up before. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat?country=
This bit from the text is difficult to argue with when you look at the graph, but it is the same old trap of looking at global figures when we should be looking at local.
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I think I may have put this one up before. https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat?country=
This bit from the text is difficult to argue with when you look at the graph, but it is the same old trap of looking at global figures when we should be looking at local.
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

View attachment 953827

They allow nuts to span into carbon negative so why not beef? A few producers have proved it can be carbon negative.

Is it because they refuse to accept that grazing land can sequester carbon?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

apparently driven by demand for pasture for beef production; but indirectly the soy demand is driving the pasture land increases).

Soy: food, feed, and land use change

The global growth in the production of soy and its use for different types of foods has been, and continues to be, a major contributor to land use change in the Amazon and other regions in South America. This building block explores the connections between soy, land use change, and discussions...

www.tabledebates.org

That nuance is so inconvenient for the anti meat lobby that is generally hidden or 'overlooked' it seems.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

This one is about the proportion of cropland use across human diets vs animal feed.

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares

If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.

ourworldindata.org

(it has also got the source for the allocations which I'll look into and try to get my head around, just more FAOSTAT datasets)

View attachment 953826

These analyses always fail to take account of the realities of arable crop production. Very few cereal growers can honestly claim to never have grain fail milling/ malting standard. Without livestock what else would be done with this grain? Biofuel (ethanol) made from grain is an anachronism. One you factor in the emissions cost of growing the grain and processing it it's anything but carbon neutral. AD is no better when fed with field grown feedstocks imho.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Interesting data there, thanks. Of course, it will all be based on GWP100 and the general misallocation of the above ground methane cycle so isn't actually reliable as such.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Just looking at that tabledebates reference, it's immediately striking just how little soy goes into dairy and beef feed, I'm actually shocked considering the usual debates on this in the general media and socials.

 

[white_stuffed]

I thought that as well. If that's the case then why does beef gets such a big proportion of 'land use change' allocated to it? It must be mostly because of the pasture use immediately after deforestation (rather than share of soy in animal feed). And pasture as a driver of deforestation is a very woolly argument.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I thought that as well. If that's the case then why does beef gets such a big proportion of 'land use change' allocated to it? It must be mostly because of the pasture use immediately after deforestation (rather than share of soy in animal feed). And pasture as a driver of deforestation is a very woolly argument.

In Brazil the key issue is Bolsanaro's law that it's illegal to plant rowcrops on cleared land for 2 years. The response has been to graze the land for 2 years then sell it for afterwards for rowcropping (soya and palm).

 

[DaveGrohl]

In Brazil the key issue is Bolsanaro's law that it's illegal to plant rowcrops on cleared land for 2 years. The response has been to graze the land for 2 years then sell it for afterwards for rowcropping (soya and palm).

It's amazing how twisted and contorted these figures can become when such a relatively simple point can become utterly lost in the data.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

It's amazing how twisted and contorted these figures can become when such a relatively simple point can become utterly lost in the data.

That depends what one is trying to "prove"......

 

[Raider112]

As someone pointed out the other day, why are crops that fail to make the grade for human use classed as grown for livestock when that isn't the intention but a last resort?
Most animal feed is probably byproduct from human use such as soya or substandard rejected crops such as grain or veg. It would be interesting to calculate what percentage of crops are grown with the sole intention of feeding livestock.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Blue Peter executives row back over meat-free challenge

Written by Rachel Martin Blue Peter bosses appear to have rowed back over a nationwide challenge in which children were encouraged to swap meat in meals for veg-based alternatives. The vegetarian option was part of the ‘supersize’ pledge which groups undertake for the programme’s ‘Green Badge’...

thefarmingforum.co.uk

I wonder which "widely debunked data" the letter referred to......