I don’t know much about this cop 26 business, but I would assume any agreements are non binding? Carry on
I prefer them gone quicker, if cattle stay here for a second winter it means we have 50% more cattle to winter.
Of course, export our problems by importing OSR from countries that still use neonics.
With the way I farm currently, a complete ban on soya wouldn’t affect me at all tbh. However, it will dramatically affect more intensive systems, which are the ones that provide more food per ha and, in the case of pigs & poultry, more efficiently/at lower cost.
They have their own power station!
Because as with most other goods, cost of production here in the U.K. will become uncompetitive and they will just import meat from abroad where they don’t bother with such self imposed constraints.
Yes and where is the farmer in South America going to export his soya beans to?
Like growing maize for grain. We just don't get enough sunshine hours for it to reach harvest before winter sets in.
And do the intensive finishing units have any less cattle in total on their farms at any one time? If not then they are still emitting as much methane surely?Err, what?
They don’t use half their feed for production, apart from in the very limited circumstances where they are fed double their maintenance requirements. They use a set amount for maintenance, dependant on weight, breed, etc, then any surplus over that is used for production.
The faster finishing will only result in a lower carbon footprint if the extra energy density of any feed has been produced (& transported/fed) with a lower carbon footprint than the lower density feed they would have on a less intense system.
Feeding grain and soya, carted in and fed mechanically in a shed, may well finish an animal faster. However, grass and forage, grown and utilised on the farm by the animal itself, will likely have a negative footprint, or close to it.
There is certainly room to improve production efficiency through genetics, but not if it means animals then NEED to have high carbon footprint feeds in order to grow and finish.
That is where the NBA’s stance is incorrect, and overly simplistic.
The carbon argument for shorter finishing is largely methane based, so highly dependant on the calculation methodology employed. To the point where grass feeding could be a carbon negative period on some scales.
Does that apply to the vast American and Brazilian feed lots though or is it just the Uk that beef production intensively is frowned upon by the government?
