Farmers blamed for pollution on a "huge scale"

[Henarar]

buy that man a beer

give yourself a ball rub mate, you deserve one

Ummm check her profile, mate

Oops - my mistake
Sorry
But it makes sense that a voice of reason is female

Perhaps that illusive EBV is worth talking about after all @dstudent ?????

 

[dstudent]

Perhaps that illusive EBV is worth talking about after all @dstudent ?????

 

[Clive]

You are not the only one to see the irony in the hysterical reaction to the loss of soil organic matter which can be easily and cheaply replaced with a sensible rotation which includes grazing livestock by those who see nothing wrong with mining their soils having to replace nutrients sold off the farm with products mined and shipped halfway around the world. But they don't use a plough so that's all right, they have the warm virtuous glow that only a zero till disc drill can provide.

not quite so simple - certainly not just about a drill, conservation ag is about constant ground cover and and SOM improvements as are livestock system but they have the drawback of methane pollution. Meat production is bad environmentally full stop (but Im not about to go veggie anytime soon either !) I think it takes something like 30kcal of wheat to make 1Kcal of beef
SOM cant be cheaply and easily replaced (I wish it could) areas of the globe have historically been turned to desert due to farmers (please read "dirt" by David Montgomery if you haven't already !)

we are NOT an environmentally friendly bunch im afraid BUT people do need to eat and there are unavoidable consequence to that - we need to do whatever we can to minimise that impact and conservation ag / no till is one of many steps we can take

 

[Henarar]

I think it takes something like 30kcal of wheat to make 1Kcal of beef

what if you don't feed them wheat ?

 

[Clive]

what if you don't feed them wheat ?

its still not the most efficient use of land by a VERY long chalk, an acre of meat production can generate way less Kcal of food than an acre of crop, plants absorb CO2 yet livestock crete it (along with methane etc) - I hate to say it but a veggie diet is far more environmentally friendly !

just because facts don't suit our agenda and preferences as farmers its pointless trying to prove we are right ...............when we are not !


of course we could all deny that climate change due to man is a myth .............. but that's another thread !

 

[Henarar]

I hate to say it but a veggie diet is far more environmentally friendly !

that's what my cows think

 

[orchard]

Just because it's not efficient in the sense in which you've analysed it, doesn't necessarily follow that it's bad for the environment. Or am I missing something?

its still not the most efficient use of land by a VERY long chalk, an acre of meat production can generate way less Kcal of food than an acre of crop, plants absorb CO2 yet livestock crete it (along with methane etc) - I hate to say it but a veggie diet is far more environmentally friendly !

just because facts don't suit our agenda and preferences as farmers its pointless trying to prove we are right ...............when we are not !


of course we could all deny that climate change due to man is a myth .............. but that's another thread !

 

[Henarar]

while folk jet round the world drive about for no need and waste so much food after it has cost in pollution to produce I don't tend to listen to talk of cows farting
Cows and cow like creatures have been happy going around farting since well a long time ago and nart to bad happened
no I won't be preached to about cows farting by someone that jets in to do the preaching which many that like to preach such things like to do

 

[Clive]

Just because it's not efficient in the sense in which you've analysed it, doesn't necessarily follow that it's bad for the environment. Or am I missing something?

Plants absorb carbon and animals produce it (and methane) both are blamed for climate change - if you believe in climate change o not is another discussion though

 

[beefandsleep]

its still not the most efficient use of land by a VERY long chalk, an acre of meat production can generate way less Kcal of food than an acre of crop, plants absorb CO2 yet livestock crete it (along with methane etc) - I hate to say it but a veggie diet is far more environmentally friendly !

just because facts don't suit our agenda and preferences as farmers its pointless trying to prove we are right ...............when we are not !


of course we could all deny that climate change due to man is a myth .............. but that's another thread !

Often it is the ONLY possible use of land in food production terms. Meat production per se is not bad for the environment, I would argue that SOME production systems are, and that applies to both plant and animal production systems. If your looking for the least environmentally damaging farming system for your ground Clive I would think you would be hard pressed to find one better than an extensive 100% grass fed lamb or beef system.
It won't be the most profitable though....
The holier than thou finger pointing does need to stop though, it leaves a very sour taste and is more than a little hypocritical.

 

[orchard]

Plants absorb carbon and animals produce it (and methane) both are blamed for climate change - if you believe in climate change o not is another discussion though

But the slow-grow pastured animal deposits it's inefficiency and accelerates the build up of OM in the soil,no?

 

[beefandsleep]

Plants absorb carbon and animals produce it (and methane) both are blamed for climate change - if you believe in climate change o not is another discussion though

This is relevant only if we are talking about zero input systems. The carbon cost of intensive crop production is far higher than extensive grazing systems wether your zero or maxi till. Permenant grassland also sequesters more carbon than grazing animals emit on balance. When your no till raises soil om by a couple of percent will that balance what is produced by fert manufacture etc? I'm not too sure.

 

[7610 super q]

while folk jet round the world drive about for no need and waste so much food after it has cost in pollution to produce I don't tend to listen to talk of cows farting
Cows and cow like creatures have been happy going around farting since well a long time ago and nart to bad happened
no I won't be preached to about cows farting by someone that jets in to do the preaching which many that like to preach such things like to do

This.

I'm baffled at why we have to put up with emissions crap on tractors, banning diesel cars, worry about the ethics of ploughing and cows farting, whilst there's hundreds of 747's flying about every day consuming 36,000 gals of fuel each, just so folks can jet half way round the planet for ' leisure '.

Something wrong somewhere.

Edit.... Google suggests 100,000 flights per day.
Edit # 2..... 500 - 600,000 tons of fuel per day.

 

[roscoe erf]

its still not the most efficient use of land by a VERY long chalk,

Really like to see you arable farm some of my land hence why most stock are on land unsuitable for arable

 

[Clive]

This is relevant only if we are talking about zero input systems. The carbon cost of intensive crop production is far higher than extensive grazing systems wether your zero or maxi till. Permenant grassland also sequesters more carbon than grazing animals emit on balance. When your no till raises soil om by a couple of percent will that balance what is produced by fert manufacture etc? I'm not too sure.

I think we will simply have to disagree on that

there is nothing carbon friendly about tillage which oxidises soil or livestock that produce greenhouse gasses

Food production has an environmental cost, its daft to argue there is no environmental cost of feeding people and that meat is better for the environment than veggie diets as its simply not correct


However I wil carry on farming and enjoying meat - the planet is screwed long term but we and many more generations will be long gone before then

 

[Clive]

Really like to see you arable farm some of my land hence why most stock are on land unsuitable for arable

true but the counter argument is there is millions of Ha of the globe that can produce crops either not being farmed or producing way lower output than it should. You get to the Monibott argument that some land simple should not be farmed, re wilding etc if your aim is what's best for the earth's environment

 

[Henarar]

This.

I'm baffled at why we have to put up with emissions crap on tractors, banning diesel cars, worry about the ethics of ploughing and cows farting, whilst there's hundreds of 747's flying about every day consuming 36,000 gals of fuel each, just so folks can jet half way round the planet for ' leisure '.

Something wrong somewhere.

Edit.... Google suggests 100,000 flights per day.
Edit # 2..... 500 - 600,000 tons of fuel per day.

how many people would a 747 carry ?

 

[Henarar]

true but the counter argument is there is millions of Ha of the globe that can produce crops either not being farmed or producing way lower output than it should. You get to the Monibott argument that some land simple should not be farmed, re wilding etc if your aim is what's best for the earth's environment

Permanent grassland is a better carbon sink than trees and has a low environmental cost to grow because it just grows so just as well have a few cooows wandering about the place while I am doing the environment such a good turn

 

[7610 super q]

how many people would a 747 carry ?

400 ?

 

[Y Fan Wen]

how many people would a 747 carry ?

It really doesn't matter how many one carries. The important figure is 5 gallons per mile.