carbon audit

[Clive]

Raising moisture level from 15 to 16% would be a huge saving in diesel for a start.

yes a massive environmental and margin win ................. for everyone other than our buyers ! They don't want to pay for 1% of 14million tonnes now do they

AHDB and NFU should be fighting for this

 

[robs1]

Fert manufacture C. footprint is their C footprint NOT FARMERS - or are you suggesting that Yara (Europe biggest commercial gas user) are nett zero simply because if we didn't buy their product they wouldn't exist ........... on similar logic EVERY part of the food chain is nett zero as it's all the consumers fault for eating !

each part of the chain has to account for their own footprint, input suppliers and our processor / retailer buyers ......... as farmers are Uniquely the only part of the chain that can actually remove Carbon you start to see why the rest of the food chain has decided to try their best to take that from us

So what is yara responsible for in footprint terms ?

 

[DrWazzock]

What a ridiculous state of affairs.
Being pedantic, yes farmers sequester carbon in the crops we produce. The people who eat our crops release the carbon. But if the people who eat our crops and release the carbon didn’t buy our crops they’d starve and we’d go out of business so ultimately what’s the point of all this? At best it’s a tax on living and an I’m alright Jack reward system to those whose part of chain sequesters carbon for no other reason than that’s the nature of it. Idiotic in my view.

 

[Still Farming]

Countryfile on about sequester carbon and rewilding V food production?

 

[DrWazzock]

Anybody who eats isn’t carbon neutral. So what are we going to do? Audit every member of the public

 

[Still Farming]

Anybody who eats isn’t carbon neutral. So what are we going to do? Audit every member of the public

They can be really healthy, eat and do all correct and drink and drug indulge too?
Waste electric and drive ungreen vehicles, travel to far away holiday regularly etc etc goes on and on.
How can a calculation be used?

 

[DaveGrohl]

What a ridiculous state of affairs.
Being pedantic, yes farmers sequester carbon in the crops we produce. The people who eat our crops release the carbon. But if the people who eat our crops and release the carbon didn’t buy our crops they’d starve and we’d go out of business so ultimately what’s the point of all this? At best it’s a tax on living and an I’m alright Jack reward system to those whose part of chain sequesters carbon for no other reason than that’s the nature of it. Idiotic in my view.

What is the point of it? To make lots of money. Don’t forget it was BP who came up with the term carbon footprint to divert the blame away from themselves. There is a whole industry that shifts huge amounts of money around, emitting carbon as it goes for the simple reason that that carbon trading industry exists. It sucks money out of all of us that could be put to infinitely better use.

 

[DrWazzock]

Farmers turning CO2 into food is not sequestration in my view. A farmers business is reliant on that food being oxidised back to CO2 so the carbon tied up in food cannot be considered to be sequestration.
It’s like saying She’ll is carbon neutral because it doesn’t actually burn the fuel it just sells it to others to burn. But if Shell didn’t put the fuel on the forecourt and left it underground, it would not be burnt so ultimately they have responsibility for the carbon footprint of the burning of that fuel.
The only sequestration that really counts in farm is OM level increases in the soil. These are small and tail off as systems bed in .Not sure they’d have much counter balance of the 5000 litres of diesel I use nor the 25 tonnes nitrate.
It’s bollox with a capital B.

 

[DrWazzock]

They can be really healthy, eat and do all correct and drink and drug indulge too?
Waste electric and drive ungreen vehicles, travel to far away holiday regularly etc etc goes on and on.
How can a calculation be used?

Members of the public have ultimate resposuniiity for carbon emissions, being pedantic about it, but the way they are lead and encouraged has much to do with it. If airlines didn’t offer cheap flights, less aviation fuel would be burnt.
Shell only sells fuel. It doesn’t burn it. The public burn of. So unless the public are each held to account over their own personal carbon balance then it’s a completely pointless exercise auditing firms for carbon balance.

 

[Still Farming]

Members of the public have ultimate resposuniiity for carbon emissions, being pedantic about it, but the way they are lead and encouraged has much to do with it. If airlines didn’t offer cheap flights, less aviation fuel would be burnt.
Shell only sells fuel. It doesn’t burn it. The public burn of. So unless the public are each held to account over their own personal carbon balance then it’s a completely pointless exercise auditing firms for carbon balance.

But the Public dictate to use and we got to "dance" to their tunes irrespective of their "do as I say , not as I do ",attitudes .

 

[DaveGrohl]

Farmers turning CO2 into food is not sequestration in my view. A farmers business is reliant on that food being oxidised back to CO2 so the carbon tied up in food cannot be considered to be sequestration.
It’s like saying She’ll is carbon neutral because it doesn’t actually burn the fuel it just sells it to others to burn. But if Shell didn’t put the fuel on the forecourt and left it underground, it would not be burnt so ultimately they have responsibility for the carbon footprint of the burning of that fuel.
The only sequestration that really counts in farm is OM level increases in the soil. These are small and tail off as systems bed in .Not sure they’d have much counter balance of the 5000 litres of diesel I use nor the 25 tonnes nitrate.
It’s bollox with a capital B.

Using Shell as an example is interesting. If there was no demand then they wouldn’t be digging carbon up. But there is demand, with many links in the chain. You could quite easily argue that it’s the demand that is the problem. Shell are making money from it so must share the responsibility. Absolutely. Whether they take 100% is a point of debate.

I struggle with this apportioning bit, see my comments earlier about fert. Clive has made his mind up but his carbon income depends on him feeling he’s 100% correct about where responsibility lies. Fair play, good luck. I’m not so sure. The answer possibly lies in taxing (yes I know) each link in the chain to a varying degree. That would end up with each product being way more expensive thereby reducing demand. Problem is, that money then goes into govt coffers and then gets pee'd up the wall on ever more ludicrous bollox. Currently that money is sort of being paid to greenwash these companies to make them look good. It’s still ending up in the wrong place, with huge amounts of it fuelling a facilitation industry that shouldn’t even exist. I don’t know what the answer is but I can spot non-answers. We’re awash with those.

 

[DrWazzock]

It’s a bit like smoking,
Do you blame the public for smoking the fags or the tobacco companies for producing them.
Without clearly defined frames of reference, carbon neutrality and auditing is meaningless.

 

[DrWazzock]

We’ve chopped and incorporated straw for 40 years. We have a wood that’s been undisturbed for 200 years. OM levels plateau. They don’t increase forever. They just reach a higher equilibrium of deposition and oxidation otherwise we’d be up to our ballcocks in leaf mould in the woods.
Set against the amount of fossilised carbon burnt since 1800 id say most greening measures we are taking to increase OM and tree cover amount to 3/8 of FA. But hey ho, it looks nice.

 

[The Seeker]

Carbon audit … my god what the f uk has this become , I’d rather give up that tow the bul s hit line…. Might get a job advising

 

[Still Farming]

It’s a bit like smoking,
Do you blame the public for smoking the fags or the tobacco companies for producing them.
Without clearly defined frames of reference, carbon neutrality and auditing is meaningless.

And good customers in a pub untill your drunk and get out you Pizz head ?

 

[Vader]

have sold annual sequestration so can do so every year, commit to not derp cultivate for 5 yr which rolls on a year every year i continue yo sell sequestration

i think a lot confuse / assume selling stored carbon which is very different and imo would be a bad idea

longer you sit on the fence waiting you loose years sequestration ……… just like not bothering to harvest a crop

If you need to deep cultivate, then what...?

 

[Vader]

Carbon assessment is not that bad, we've had to do one to satisfy our milk buyers

12 months from march 2020 our enterprise emitted :
1009Grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kg of fat and protein corrected milk produced.

Which is apparently something to shout about.. next assesment they will be looking to include how much carbon we are capturing, which may result in us being carbon neutral.

My honest opinion is although it seems a load of bullsh!t, its a positive, it's a result and seemingly a good result, it's something official to give to those who say we're destroying the planet.

If RT are getting involved then they're just jumping on the bandwagon. they need to stick to what they're there to do ....... Um food security wasn't it?

You maybe czrbon neutral, but will they pay a premium for it?
Or will they just use your figures to bring their own foitprint down fir free..?

 

[DaveGrohl]

have sold annual sequestration so can do so every year, commit to not derp cultivate for 5 yr which rolls on a year every year i continue yo sell sequestration

i think a lot confuse / assume selling stored carbon which is very different and imo would be a bad idea

longer you sit on the fence waiting you loose years sequestration ……… just like not bothering to harvest a crop

If you need to deep cultivate, then what...?

You’d think grass would then be top of this tree wouldn’t you logically? Never mind DD or min till but not deep cultivating. Grass is no soil movement for several years. Or much longer. Grass farmers should be struggling to spend the piles of money…. So as with SFI it’s all set up for arable farmers. Grass is an inconvenient annoyance.

 

[Vader]

You’d think grass would then be top of this tree wouldn’t you logically? Never mind DD or min till but not deep cultivating. Grass is no soil movement for several years. Or much longer. Grass farmers should be struggling to spend the piles of money…. So as with SFI it’s all set up for arable farmers. Grass is an inconvenient annoyance.

Problem is we had princess nut nuts running the country and with her mates goldsmiths, have made policy to demonise animal farming so they can do their pet trendy project of rewilding.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Problem is we had princess nut nuts running the country and with her mates goldsmiths, have made policy to demonise animal farming so they can do their pet trendy project of rewilding.

I’m delighted she’s gone. But the people who were influencing her are still there. We’re assuming with her gone it’ll all come right. It won’t.