Eat red meat to save the planet

[Formatted]

Pictures of Amazon burning are awful and I've seen on my Facebook many of my non-farming friends saying they are going to stop eating beef because of what cattle ranchers out there are doing.

What they don't realise is there is a 40% tariff on Brazilian beef coming to the UK, you will struggle to find it outside specialist restaurants. English beef is produced at grass, in the winter you'll find it fed on homegrown feeds like crimped barely and fermented grass called silage.

You can't grow soy in the UK and the vast majority of it will come from Brazil and America, soy is the protein element in chicken feeds.

Eat red meat to save the planet.

 

[SteveHants]

It's worth also telling them that the Amazon rainforest is often initially cleared to grow soya and only when the soil is sufficiently depleted does it get put down to grass for cattle.

You could also tell then that the average 150ac pasture based farm in the UK sequesters about 388t of carbon per year.

 

[yellowbelly]

You could also tell then that the average 150ac pasture based farm in the UK sequesters about 388t of carbon per year.

Is this figure anywhere near accurate? As in..............

......I'm banding this graphic about to anybody I can get to listen. I'm just interested to know if the actual numbers are anywhere near accurate.
I nicked the graphic from one of @Brisel 's posts and have no reason to doubt it.

Also, I'd like a similar one for sheep and a rough idea how much carbon a car and a plane churn out.

 

[essexpete]

What is needed is some unbiased scientific facts to back up the above. Anybody or organisation seems to me to be able to produce figures to back an argument.

 

[AGN76]

Oddly, I've eaten loads more red meat since all the vegan rubbish on here. Subliminal messaging?

 

[Muck Spreader]

What is needed is some unbiased scientific facts to back up the above. Anybody or organisation seems to me to be able to produce figures to back an argument.

The problem nowadays is with the word "unbiased". It's very difficult to look at any research without seeing some conscious or unconscious bias being introduced in it.

 

[essexpete]

The problem nowadays is with the word "unbiased". It's very difficult to look at any research without seeing some conscious or unconscious bias being introduced in it.

Yes I suppose all are funded from somewhere.

 

[Raider112]

What is needed is some unbiased scientific facts to back up the above. Anybody or organisation seems to me to be able to produce figures to back an argument.

In the local paper today it says a trial project is being explored to accurately record the carbon footprint of Cumbrian farms. If it is industry funded people could say it was biased but it doesn't affect our opponents case when some of their funding is questionable.

 

[SteveHants]

Is this figure anywhere near accurate? As in..............

......I'm banding this graphic about to anybody I can get to listen. I'm just interested to know if the actual numbers are anywhere near accurate.
I nicked the graphic from one of @Brisel 's posts and have no reason to doubt it.

Also, I'd like a similar one for sheep and a rough idea how much carbon a car and a plane churn out.

There are quite a few papers that deal with this, I think it's an average.

Here's some sources: https://www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/toolkit/greenhouse-gas-emissions

https://www.rootsofnature.co.uk/cowspiracy-an-ethical-meat-eaters-response/

You'll need to look at the references for both at the bottom of the page.

 

[Brisel]

Is this figure anywhere near accurate? As in..............

......I'm banding this graphic about to anybody I can get to listen. I'm just interested to know if the actual numbers are anywhere near accurate.
I nicked the graphic from one of @Brisel 's posts and have no reason to doubt it.

Also, I'd like a similar one for sheep and a rough idea how much carbon a car and a plane churn out.

I lifted that image from Twitter, so I don't really know its true origins nor the maths used to work those figures out. I guessed from the spelling that it is American. Start putting artificial nitrogen on grass & I'll bet the carbon figures might alter though you could argue that the extra biomass will sequester more carbon to offset the applied N.

You've got to be careful whose figures you take - look at the error for water consumption by cattle where they used all the rainfall on pasture to count towards the water requirement for beef/milk.

 

[kiwi pom]

Is this figure anywhere near accurate? As in..............

......I'm banding this graphic about to anybody I can get to listen. I'm just interested to know if the actual numbers are anywhere near accurate.
I nicked the graphic from one of @Brisel 's posts and have no reason to doubt it.

Also, I'd like a similar one for sheep and a rough idea how much carbon a car and a plane churn out.

I have no idea of the numbers but does it include everything? Beef cattle aren't generally finished on grazed grass in the UK and normally are at least housed in winter (is most bull beef is housed permanently?)
So you have to add in all the acres used for forage conservation and all the acres needed to supply the barley/wheat as well as the straw.
If you're feeding anything else that needs adding in too.
At the end of the day it all depends on how you're working everything out and what you're trying to say. One system might look slightly 'greener' BUT the amount of food produced per acre might me much lower.
That's why 100% organic farming cant feed the world.
I don't think going down the 'look how green we are ' path is going to help long term.

 

[yellowbelly]

I have no idea of the numbers but does it include everything?

That's the problem, I know every system will be different, but there doesn't seem to be any 'ball park' figures for anything so we can get a bit of an idea how good/bad we are.

 

[exmoor dave]

BBC radio 1 news, several times today had a green peace bloke saying 90% of soya is grown for animal feed?

Is this even remotely true? I though most animal feed soya was the bi-product of soy for human use?

 

[yellowbelly]

BBC radio 1 news, several times today had a green peace bloke saying 90% of soya is grown for animal feed?

Is this even remotely true? I though most animal feed soya was the bi-product of soy for human use?

https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/
In a nutshell.....
20% is oil for human consumption
80% is meal for animal feed, of which, over 50% is fed to poultry, 25% is fed to pigs and the rest goes to beef, sairy and pet food.

 

[kiwi pom]

That's the problem, I know every system will be different, but there doesn't seem to be any 'ball park' figures for anything so we can get a bit of an idea how good/bad we are.

When you consider how numbers get twisted to suit an agenda, perhaps its best not to go too far down that road?
The NFU and other organisations are getting killed for 'doing nothing' but perhaps that's the best idea? Keep your head down and get on with it.

 

[Irish NZ]

https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/
In a nutshell.....
20% is oil for human consumption
80% is meal for animal feed, of which, over 50% is fed to poultry, 25% is fed to pigs and the rest goes to beef, dairy and pet food.

Is that because its 20% oil and it's for the oil its primarily grow with the stockfeed being a high value coproduct/byproduct?

Or asked another way is 80% of all soy planted used solely for stockfeed like a drop of feed barley or is it 80% of the soy bean itself ending up being fed to stock.

We get the same thing for palm kernel. People claim it's for palm kernel the rainforest is being destroyed but its palm oil is the cash crop and then they would process the palm kernel to extract the palm kernel oil then dump the pke in the sea or burn it until someone thought of feeding it to stock. Not quite the same but people would have you believe it's all to make stockfeed.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Is that because its 20% oil and it's for the oil its primarily grow with the stockfeed being a high value coproduct/byproduct?

Or asked another way is 80% of all soy planted used solely for stockfeed like a drop of feed barley or is it 80% of the soy bean itself ending up being fed to stock.

We get the same thing for palm kernel. People claim it's for palm kernel the rainforest is being destroyed but its palm oil is the cash crop and then they would process the palm kernel to extract the palm kernel oil then dump the pke in the sea or burn it until someone thought of feeding it to stock. Not quite the same but people would have you believe it's all to make stockfeed.

I immediately wondered the same. Quoting figures seems a good way of illistration but ends up being meaningless without context. This is half the trouble with these vegan arguments, they pick and choose which numbers to use whilst using them in a wholely inappropriate way. An answer to the soya question would be good anyone?

 

[yellowbelly]

I immediately wondered the same. Quoting figures seems a good way of illistration but ends up being meaningless without context. This is half the trouble with these vegan arguments, they pick and choose which numbers to use whilst using them in a wholely inappropriate way. An answer to the soya question would be good anyone?

From https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/

 

[Muck Spreader]

https://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/
In a nutshell.....
20% is oil for human consumption
80% is meal for animal feed, of which, over 50% is fed to poultry, 25% is fed to pigs and the rest goes to beef, sairy and pet food.

Soya bean meal is often more valuable then the oil extracted from it. So it is arguable by the green lobby that it is grown for primarily for animal feed. In reality it is grown for both.

 

[JP1]