Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
Climate change denial isn't going to do anyone any favours. There's a website called Skeptical Science. There's masses of information on there.
Hold your horses my friend.

Nobody is denying the climate is changing, it always has and always will, that's what it does, it changes. The question is to what extent is mankind responsible and to that there is no clear answer.
 

Bill the Bass

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
How many of you have read all 123 pages of the report? It is that important that you really should.



That also corresponds to a massive increase in the use of fertiliser, agrochemicals, conversion of grassland and forest to crop land and aggressive tillage.



Indeed. Amongst the basic foundations of Regenerative Agriculture are avoiding bare soil and having a living root in the soil all year.



View attachment 854885

Note the absence of practicing land managers and the prevalence of food retailers and processors.



That depends how the pasture is managed.



The report does cover that. It says that, especially as British meat has a lower GHG impact than the world average, the reduction must not be replaced by imports. In other words, consumption must decrease by the same amount as ruminant number decline. It DOESN'T say how they would guarantee that though.

It also states that if we just stop importing then there won’t be opportunities for land use change. The whole report is just a feeble attempt at a land grab from those nasty livestock farmers, Christy it even mentions that uk land is owned by 1% of the population, I mean what has that got to do with climate change?

Funny how drax managed to get a director on the committee?
 

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
But if you look at the respective section of Skeptical Science you'll read that too much CO2 is detrimental to many plants, and if the advanced rate of growth caused by extra carbon isn't matched by increases in other elements, water being an example, the plant withers and dies. It's not as simple as you might think.
It really is as simple as you think. Get yourself inside a glasshouse and just see how much commercial growers crank up CO2 levels to get enhanced crops. As I keep saying CO2 is not the problem.
 
Location
Devon
The NFU should sack their chief advisor on "Renewable Energy and Climate Change".

TBH I think that its Minette who is driving this climate change rubbish and pushing for farms to reduce livestock/ plant trees and be carbon zero by 2040!

Clear why see is doing it as like RT ( which she has pushed so hard onto the industry ) is a cushy high paying role on some company board that audits farms for carbon usage/ lock up etc.

Who the hell in their right mind would support something that will destroy their members assets like land if they are forced to grow trees with subs only covering the growing costs for the first 10/15 years at best and then you will get no income from that land for another 40/50+ years:?? she lives in cloud cuckoo land!
 

delilah

Member
36m I think (from memory) based on annual income .......

It is worth summarizing what £36m gets you these days:
On methane from cows: "We know it's bad, we apologize, we will get rid of a load of them. Bear with us."
On greenhouse gas emissions from UK Ag: "We know it's bad, again we apologize, but we aren't as bad as abroad."
It's not much of a marketing strategy , is it ?
 

Frank-the-Wool

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
East Sussex
Having heard her speak, I would agree with that sentiment!

The chief adviser on Climate change is a gentleman who knows his stuff but can be a little abrasive about telling the facts. He was also one of the advisers on the CCC.
I know that whatever seems to be unpalatable to farmers then the NFU gets blamed especially by GUTH but in reality it is impossible to be a climate change denier with so much "science" being put into the subject.
The NFU point has always been that agriculture is in a very strong position to be part of the solution as we farmers manage a large part of the land and as a by product we grow food to feed people.

I believe it is very clear the direction of travel that agriculture and land use will be pushed and the money will go with it for the environment and to reduce or sequestrate Co2.

However unless we have an organisation like the NFU then we will be sold down the river as there is no point us being mandated to do all of this to save the planet when we only emit 1% of the Co2 in the world.

While it would appear that the livestock sector will be the hardest hit by the move to reduce meat consumption the report suggests a further reduction in livestock numbers by 10% in the next 30 years. You have to see that numbers of sheep and cattle have reduced by almost 20% in the last 30 years anyway. However because of genetic improvements and health efficiencies production has also increased. The problem has been that profitability has not!

At this critical time in our history now is NOT the time to knock the NFU as we will need to be seen to have a strong collective stance against all the so called climate change experts who can only talk about saving the planet, whereas most of us have the land and tools to at least do something about it.
 

delilah

Member
The chief adviser on Climate change is a gentleman who knows his stuff but can be a little abrasive about telling the facts. He was also one of the advisers on the CCC.
I know that whatever seems to be unpalatable to farmers then the NFU gets blamed especially by GUTH but in reality it is impossible to be a climate change denier with so much "science" being put into the subject.
The NFU point has always been that agriculture is in a very strong position to be part of the solution as we farmers manage a large part of the land and as a by product we grow food to feed people.

I believe it is very clear the direction of travel that agriculture and land use will be pushed and the money will go with it for the environment and to reduce or sequestrate Co2.

However unless we have an organisation like the NFU then we will be sold down the river as there is no point us being mandated to do all of this to save the planet when we only emit 1% of the Co2 in the world.

While it would appear that the livestock sector will be the hardest hit by the move to reduce meat consumption the report suggests a further reduction in livestock numbers by 10% in the next 30 years. You have to see that numbers of sheep and cattle have reduced by almost 20% in the last 30 years anyway. However because of genetic improvements and health efficiencies production has also increased. The problem has been that profitability has not!

At this critical time in our history now is NOT the time to knock the NFU as we will need to be seen to have a strong collective stance against all the so called climate change experts who can only talk about saving the planet, whereas most of us have the land and tools to at least do something about it.

There is much that can be said in response to that, but I will limit it to just the one point in response to your final paragraph.

A central tenet of any membership organization is this: All criticism is constructive. It is not 'knocking the NFU' for farmers to suggest ways in which the NFU could do better. The NFU staff devour everything on here. That is a thoroughly good thing. The problem, as it stands, is that too often they are reading it not to look for inspiration, but to identify troublemakers. (And, yes, I do have evidence to that effect). Change that attitude towards what is meant as constructive input, and you change the NFU for the better.
 
The chief adviser on Climate change is a gentleman who knows his stuff but can be a little abrasive about telling the facts. He was also one of the advisers on the CCC.
I know that whatever seems to be unpalatable to farmers then the NFU gets blamed especially by GUTH but in reality it is impossible to be a climate change denier with so much "science" being put into the subject.
The NFU point has always been that agriculture is in a very strong position to be part of the solution as we farmers manage a large part of the land and as a by product we grow food to feed people.

I believe it is very clear the direction of travel that agriculture and land use will be pushed and the money will go with it for the environment and to reduce or sequestrate Co2.

However unless we have an organisation like the NFU then we will be sold down the river as there is no point us being mandated to do all of this to save the planet when we only emit 1% of the Co2 in the world.

While it would appear that the livestock sector will be the hardest hit by the move to reduce meat consumption the report suggests a further reduction in livestock numbers by 10% in the next 30 years. You have to see that numbers of sheep and cattle have reduced by almost 20% in the last 30 years anyway. However because of genetic improvements and health efficiencies production has also increased. The problem has been that profitability has not!

At this critical time in our history now is NOT the time to knock the NFU as we will need to be seen to have a strong collective stance against all the so called climate change experts who can only talk about saving the planet, whereas most of us have the land and tools to at least do something about it.

My view on him is coloured by his support for straw burning power stations, which might be renewable but are hardly green.
They might be a boon for arable farmers but are not so good for stock farmers that need to buy straw.
Similarly, massive, crop (rather than waste) fed AD plants, promoted by him, are not green.
Also, he appears to have no knowledge of the big opportunity for agriculture, getting carbon back into soils.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
My view on him is coloured by his support for straw burning power stations, which might be renewable but are hardly green.
They might be a boon for arable farmers but are not so good for stock farmers that need to buy straw.
Similarly, massive, crop (rather than waste) fed AD plants, promoted by him, are not green.
Also, he appears to have no knowledge of the big opportunity for agriculture, getting carbon back into soils.
Crop feed AD units are an economic industry, not a climate impact reduction one. The fossil fuels used around here to grow and haul maize to AD units are a travesty.
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
The chief adviser on Climate change is a gentleman who knows his stuff but can be a little abrasive about telling the facts. He was also one of the advisers on the CCC.
I know that whatever seems to be unpalatable to farmers then the NFU gets blamed especially by GUTH but in reality it is impossible to be a climate change denier with so much "science" being put into the subject.
The NFU point has always been that agriculture is in a very strong position to be part of the solution as we farmers manage a large part of the land and as a by product we grow food to feed people.

I believe it is very clear the direction of travel that agriculture and land use will be pushed and the money will go with it for the environment and to reduce or sequestrate Co2.

However unless we have an organisation like the NFU then we will be sold down the river as there is no point us being mandated to do all of this to save the planet when we only emit 1% of the Co2 in the world.

While it would appear that the livestock sector will be the hardest hit by the move to reduce meat consumption the report suggests a further reduction in livestock numbers by 10% in the next 30 years. You have to see that numbers of sheep and cattle have reduced by almost 20% in the last 30 years anyway. However because of genetic improvements and health efficiencies production has also increased. The problem has been that profitability has not!

At this critical time in our history now is NOT the time to knock the NFU as we will need to be seen to have a strong collective stance against all the so called climate change experts who can only talk about saving the planet, whereas most of us have the land and tools to at least do something about it.
At the risk of appearing 'abrasive' might I suggest that the term 'climate change denier' is mainly deployed by those who have invested far too much time and reputation in the church of global warming and now find that actually, their great models in the sky are generally ignored by nature herself.

As for the NFU then it is not the collective voice of farming at all but merely part of the establishment that sees it's role as delivering the farmer vote, traditionally to the Tories. The great land owning lords of the shires have not totally gone away and if they see a bit of the ol' spondoola in planting woodland rather than the filthy business of farming then hey, its Christmas big time! And the plebs? Oh let them eat shite from some giga factory somewhere.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.3%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 34.9%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.9%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,293
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top