Numbers are relatively static. I did not even hint that "far more ruminants existed historically". Although they certainly did over large areas of the globe which are now almost exclusively arable.
Far more cattle are put through slaughterhouses worldwide today than historically, but that is due to a far lower age to finish these days rather than more cattle at any point in time. This is similar in milk production where total milk in the uk is relatively static but from far less cows and farmers than traditionally, due to average yield per cow annually having risen by three fold over seventy years. Therefore the methane produced per pint will have dropped by at least threefold as well over that time, probably more like four to fivefold considering that higher quality forage and more concentrates are fed to achieve that yield, both of which reduce ruminant gasses.
Not sure that you should be concerned with exact figures. The other side just spout any old rubbish propaganda they like and it is repeated by the media and believed. What agriculture needs is effective short phrases that resonate with the common man. Soundbites. Not technical details that go over people’s heads and not farmers like you questioning those sound soundbites.
What do they do with what's left of the oat's after milking?What a pair of wankirs they were, this is a relatively small niche market for oat milk, half a dozen other big arable guys follow suit & their market collapses.
This is the problem with all these new fads, they are only viable until other farmers are forced to go over to suppling that market then it becomes flooded & no longer viable as the price you receive is forced down by the supermarkets.
Organic still only just works because farmers are reluctant to go down that route so it still has a relatively small amount of producers.
Can you imagine what would happen to the green vegetable price if we all gave up livestock & ploughed our land to all grow vegetables, we would all be finished.
Prats that go on the Beeb or any other medium crowing about their latest wonder crop are simply in the process of killing their market & business
and the UN saying, we have 60 harvest left in the soil (if we continue to farm the way we do now - which I guess means using synthetic fertliser without a break with animals building soil fertility), so I think Vegan food will destroy our soils and cause the small amounts of organic matter to reduce even further. I bet Turnip Townshend is turning in his grave!Was having this discussion with the missus today, if the whole world was vegan we would have no organic fertiliser, only artificial, which requires large amounts of energy to produce, therefore adding to the 'energy crisis' we are in. Why does no-one ever seem to make these points when debating veganism/climate change etc? It seems a blatantly obvious point to me.
and the UN saying, we have 60 harvest left in the soil (if we continue to farm the way we do now - which I guess means using synthetic fertliser without a break with animals building soil fertility), so I think Vegan food will destroy our soils and cause the small amounts of organic matter to reduce even further. I bet Turnip Townshend is turning in his grave!
which is why I am in favour of compromise, yes, growing potatoes needs lots of cultivation, but then maybe have a ley to rebuild after the soil damage, more mixed farming I think.So does livestock production never cause soil to need cultivation.
Do you only feed permanent pasture & never use concentrates, if that is the case well done. Do you sell fat or store?
I've tried to find this. There are several academic papers that have tried to make assessments but there are huge margins of error (50%+). Most only cover the USA anyway and relate to the huge herds of buffalo before europeans arrived.My apologies. Do you have evidence that wild ruminant numbers were ever similar or greater than current total ruminant numbers?
This was the response I had back from the beeb following their shop well for the planet programme.
Thank you for contacting us about Shop Well for the Planet, 14.10.2021.
We’ve looked very carefully at the science and had expert advice on all the figures quoted in the series. We are comfortable that data which is widely accepted by the scientific community supports what we have stated in the episode - ‘More than half of global food emissions come from animal products…’. These numbers relate to food GHGs alone, not all anthropogenic GHGs.
With regards to the figures for the lamb curry, we focused on the specific curry that the family were eating and compared it to a vegetable version. All calculations were done using carbon footprint data for UK Lamb and vegetables as opposed to global averages. We hope this helps clarify matters and we appreciate your interest and feedback on the show.
BBC Complaints Team
It is just as available to you as it is to me. If you want the information, go look for it yourself. Its your kind of procrastination that actually dooms farmers to be swamped by the absolute drivel and speculation that those that wish, even if they don't actually know it yet, to starve or otherwise create food in factories, completely bypassing the land and farmers. The land already being targeted for re-wilding and mass forestry.My apologies. Do you have evidence that wild ruminant numbers were ever similar or greater than current total ruminant numbers?
They gave a hierarchy or proteins to eat with regards to GHG emissions saying beef was the worst down the plant based being the best. I don’t think the NFU has that as their official line do they? The NFU guy was very positive on the sequestrstion ability of grassland for the 2 seconds he was aloud on screen.Yeah wasn't my question. What did the BBC report with regards cows and climate change, that isn't on the NFU and AHDB websites ?
Yes, so the BBC complaints team are correct, more than half of global food emissions of GHG come from livestock, it says so on the NFU and AHDB websites. So why are folks laying into the BBC ?