London Uni Campus Beef Ban

[borderterribles]

Stop Foreign students and their air travel that would reduce their carbon footprint?

Hmmm, I strongly suspect that you don't understand the range of ethnic diversity at Goldsmiths? Number 1 daughter did her degree there. It seemed then to me to be mainly staffed by barking bat-sh!t mental fruit loops!

 

[Cowabunga]

And more complex again than you are suggesting.
Grazing ruminants will be accompanied by bacteria and other organisms in the soil/ pasture that utilize all that methane. These are not present in a feed lot or housed environment so there is not the recycling element to such intensively farmed animals. Yes there are moves to try and capture some of that methane from slurry stores etc which may be a good thing for that system, but we constantly look for more man made ways of solving man made problems when nature has its own solutions if we work with it.

Methane mostly comes out of the front end of a cow as a result of ruminating, not the rear. Ammonia and hydrogen sulphide and possibly some methane from fermentation is the slurry issue as far as I'm aware.
Methane production is highest when cows feed on roughage/coarse-forage which is broken down by cutting and ruminating. I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue here.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Methane mostly comes out of the front end of a cow as a result of ruminating, not the rear. Ammonia and hydrogen sulphide and possibly some methane from fermentation is the slurry issue as far as I'm aware.
Methane production is highest when cows feed on roughage/coarse-forage which is broken down by cutting and ruminating. I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue here.

No, I appreciate it's coming out the front end, I didn't comment on that. It was your point of capturing from slurry pits not mine.
The point you are missing is that in a grazing environment methane is part of a natural cycle. With a relatively stable herd size, there is no net increase in methane to the environment, because pasture based organisms are utilising it.
This is not the case in feedlots or housed livestock so even if they are producing less, there is not the natural cycle to uptake it.
And that also fails to take into consideration the emissions (from soil, from ag machinery, from fertilizer, from transport, etc) of the concentrates used in place of forage.

 

[Still Farming]

Hmmm, I strongly suspect that you don't understand the range of ethnic diversity at Goldsmiths? Number 1 daughter did her degree there. It seemed then to me to be mainly staffed by barking bat-sh!t mental fruit loops!

If they travel within the UK the collective footprint be large without any oversea guests!

 

[Cowabunga]

No, I appreciate it's coming out the front end, I didn't comment on that. It was your point of capturing from slurry pits not mine.
The point you are missing is that in a grazing environment methane is part of a natural cycle. With a relatively stable herd size, there is no net increase in methane to the environment, because pasture based organisms are utilising it.
This is not the case in feedlots or housed livestock so even if they are producing less, there is not the natural cycle to uptake it.
And that also fails to take into consideration the emissions (from soil, from ag machinery, from fertilizer, from transport, etc) of the concentrates used in place of forage.

What do you think happens to all the slurry? It certainly isn't stored indefinitely. Mostly it is spread back on the land just as a cow would if she shat on it, only far more evenly. The trick is not to spread it into the air.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I am not in any way criticising the production of beef and lamb by mainly grass - grazed and conserved.

What I am criticising is the ridiculous notion can it can, and should, be done without concentrate or grain supplementation. We all know the benefit of protein supplementation to improve the efficiency with which roughages are used, and the benfits of the additional energy which grain and starchy feeds can supply in times of need.

What about the aged and leanish Suckler cow that calves twins? Does she not deserve a bit of help. What about the ewe carrying triplets? Do you just let her draw on her body reserves and accept the calamitous results. And what about young weaned stock in winter. Do you insist that they make do on nothing but roughage when we all know that a small amount of a high protein supplement will have an enormous effect on their growth and well-being, and the efficiency with which they use the roughage.

Why are the proponents of ''no concentrates'' willing to ignore all the basic concepts of good and considerate animal husbandry simply to con a gullible consumer into thinking they are saving the planet. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

In any business, stay flexible and keep your options open. And don't make promises you can't keep.

I believe pasture fed had a derogation to allow some concentrate feeding, for example ewes with twins

 

[Poorbuthappy]

What do you think happens to all the slurry? It certainly isn't stored indefinitely. Mostly it is spread back on the land just as a cow would if she shat on it, only far more evenly. The trick is not to spread it into the air.

But as you said, most of the methane comes out the front end , so the slurry has no relevance there. But I agree firing it upwards isn't helping matters.
We can mitigate the effects of "intensive" farming (I don't really like the word cos there's so many different ways to farm) or we can seek to work in harmony with nature and not have same negative effects that need mitigating against.

I know, I know, I'll crawl back in my hole and clean the dung off my sandals?

 

[TechWise]

Happy to say that common sense is prevailing and that mine is the most liked comment on the survey and the one that everyone sees first. A few other like minded people are fending off the nutters. Borrowed your catchphrase @Clive

 

[Raider112]

View attachment 827908
Happy to say that common sense is prevailing and that mine is the most liked comment on the survey and the one that everyone sees first. A few other like minded people are fending off the nutters. Borrowed your catchphrase @Clive

A bit of a concern that 36% want to ban beef though.

 

[caveman]

A bit of a concern that 36% want to ban beef though.

That'll be the Muslims who want the choice to be bacon or pork or starve.

 

[JP1]

 

[Cowabunga]

But as you said, most of the methane comes out the front end , so the slurry has no relevance there. But I agree firing it upwards isn't helping matters.
We can mitigate the effects of "intensive" farming (I don't really like the word cos there's so many different ways to farm) or we can seek to work in harmony with nature and not have same negative effects that need mitigating against.

I know, I know, I'll crawl back in my hole and clean the dung off my sandals?

Once again you ignore the fact that a cow on a mainly forage diet emits far more gas than one farmed more intensively, per animal and way way more per unit of output. Sucklers are a disaster in this respect, because you have two animals on high forage diets for one animal's production.

I know that isn't the convenient easy message you want to put across, but they are the facts.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

All my lambs are sold off grass no cereals at all and I’m not a crackpot

Is there evidence to support that your not a crackpot, or must we just take your word for it.

 

[Bill the Bass]

I complained to Goldsmiths;

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to you to complain about the recent stance you have taken to ban the sale of beef on your campus. Whilst I applaud your efforts to attract attention to the climate change debate, I strongly feel you are missing the point.

The National Farmers Union has recently acknowledged the responsibility farmers have in fighting climate change and have stated that the farming industry will be carbon neutral by 2040. I feel it must be highlighted to on the positive role livestock production can play in sequestering carbon by adding grassland into arable rotations. Indeed, if we are all to follow your lead there will be no grassland in arable rotations which will lead to over cultivation of soils and the release of many time more carbon than if there were animals in the landscape.

I would like you to share with me the source of your evidence that has persuaded you to come to this policy position, as an academic institution surely this position is evidence based? I have serious concerns that it isn’t having just witnessed one of your staff stating beef production to be the biggest contributor to green house grass emissions, this is despite the recent IPCC report stating that agriculture as whole represents 23% of emissions (the beef sector is a small part of that percentage). The weight of evidence clearly states that transportation and domestic heating are the two largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions contributing over 50%. In the light of the role transport plays I would also like to know if your institution has banned the use of study tours and the intake of overseas students?

Again I reiterate my ask for you to share with me your evidence on the above subject as I would like to escalate this issue to the department of education as I feel encouraging, or in your case forcing students to make changes to their lifestyles based on fictitious evidence is not appropriate for any academic institution that aspires to be credible.

A await your response,

Here is their response;

Thank you for taking the time to write. I appreciate the evident strength of feeling you hold over this issue but hope you will forgive me in setting out the full context of the media reports to which you are responding.

As you note, our decision to stop serving beef in College catering outlets is only one part of a much wider package of measures to help address our carbon footprint. These are set out briefly on our website (at https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/carbon-neutral-plan/), and include ambitious plans to install significantly more solar panels across our campus, to move to a 100% clean energy supplier, and to divest from companies which generate more than 10% of their revenue from fossil fuels.

I will indeed also be suggesting that colleagues reduce the use of air travel, and have personally committed to doing likewise.

These steps reflect the fact that we understand that meat production reflects around 1/6 of global carbon emissions, and that we have to take a range of other steps – especially around reducing the use of fossil fuels – if we are to address the climate change emergency.

We entirely accept (as I pointed out during media interviews this week) that many British farmers go to considerable efforts to work as sustainably as possible, and that emissions from typical British beef production methods will be lower than methods employed in some other parts of the world. However, this cannot obscure the fact that, relatively speaking, beef remains a particularly carbon intensive form of food. It is widely accepted across the scientific community that western societies need to eat less meat in order to restore more efficient land use globally, and help tackle global warming.

For the avoidance of doubt, students and staff remain free to bring beef products on to campus, should they wish.

I hope this helps sets out the context for our recent announcements and offers some reassurance that our decision about the sale of beef is set within a wider context.

Yours,

Frances

Professor Frances Corner OBE
Warden

And my response back:

Dear Professor Corner,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email, however you have avoided my questions, can you share with me the evidence that supports your stance?

I would strongly question your stance as would others I’m sure, in stating that beef production is a) responsible for 1/6 of carbon emissions and b) is a carbon intensive form of food.

As I stated in my email, the recent IPCC report suggests agriculture as a whole emits 23% of total global anthropogenic green house gases, beef production being a very small part of this. So I ask where is your evidence that supports your claim that beef production contributes 1/6 of carbon emissions? It is widely accepted by scientists world wide that transportation accounts for over 40% of green house gases so why are you unduly discriminating beef production?

I would also state that recent peer reviewed science states that only a 10% reduction in methane emissions is required to contribute to global cooling and a reduction in red meat consumption is not necessary. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8 I reiterate my ask for your institution to provide the data that supports your stance.

I also take particular issue with your statement that beef production is an inefficient use of land, the statement only reiterates your thin veneer of knowledge on the subject. Beef production in the UK is located on the 65% of uk farmland that is grassland, unsuitable for other cropping. Raising beef is the lowest margin agricultural activity in the UK - do you honestly think farmers would raise beef cattle if their land was suitable for other higher value crops? Beef cattle (and sheep for that matter) are incredibly efficient at utilising low quality grassland (which is indigestible for humans) into a nutritious and healthy food product, the wool, leather and hide also make utilisable by-products. The assumption, and that is what it is, that cattle eat crops specifically grown for them is simply not true, most grains fed to cattle are by products of the human food chain, husk and kernel not utilisable by humans that would otherwise go to landfill, these are consequently used to feed to cattle in the ultimate form of recycling.

Given the huge role transportation plays in climate change (and this is irrefutable) with over 50 % of the worlds fossil fuels being used since 1990, a much smarter strategy would be to ban the use of imported food stuffs on your campus and commit to local sourcing from UK farmers. However I suspect that such a strategy would not grab the correct headlines this close to the university clearing process.

Yours sincerely,

 

[Hampton]

Once again you ignore the fact that a cow on a mainly forage diet emits far more gas than one farmed more intensively, per animal and way way more per unit of output. Sucklers are a disaster in this respect, because you have two animals on high forage diets for one animal's production.

I know that isn't the convenient easy message you want to put across, but they are the facts.

Climate change: How cow burps and pink seaweed can affect the planet

Farmers in Australia have been feeding cows pink seaweed to help fight climate change

www.bbc.co.uk

This is interesting. Pity they hid it in the kids news and didn’t debate and report it in an adult manner

 

[Cowabunga]

Climate change: How cow burps and pink seaweed can affect the planet

Farmers in Australia have been feeding cows pink seaweed to help fight climate change

www.bbc.co.uk

This is interesting. Pity they hid it in the kids news and didn’t debate and report it in an adult manner

That is the kind of approach that is likely to make a vast practical difference and, more importantly, great public relations.
However, you can bet that vegan and 'animal rights' pressure groups will keep up the pressure and propaganda and increase it greatly as the years pass by.

 

[pgk]

That'll be the Muslims who want the choice to be bacon or pork or starve.

Highly unlikely, muslims are major consumers of red meat but do not eat pig based products for historical religious reasons based on health concerns.

 

[caveman]

Highly unlikely, muslims are major consumers of red meat but do not eat pig based products for historical religious reasons based on health concerns.

Hmmmmmmm.
Right.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Once again you ignore the fact that a cow on a mainly forage diet emits far more gas than one farmed more intensively, per animal and way way more per unit of output. Sucklers are a disaster in this respect, because you have two animals on high forage diets for one animal's production.

I know that isn't the convenient easy message you want to put across, but they are the facts.

Once again you ignore the fact that animals grazing pasture are part of a methane cycle.
There is no net gain in methane.

How do you think the planet managed when there were millions of bison, wildebeest etc rearing 1 calf each - 2 animals per unit of production. That's what built the great soils and grasslands of this world. There didn't seem to be an excess methane issue then.

 

[Cowabunga]

Once again you ignore the fact that animals grazing pasture are part of a methane cycle.
There is no net gain in methane.

How do you think the planet managed when there were millions of bison, wildebeest etc rearing 1 calf each - 2 animals per unit of production. That's what built the great soils and grasslands of this world. There didn't seem to be an excess methane issue then.

Oh dear! There was little other greenhouse gas emission at the time. In fact carbon was being sequestrated in a big way to create the carbon based fuel we now burn.
However, you carry on believing that cattle are not net emitters if it makes you happy. There are certainly less of them now than in the distant past, but that is irrelevant when you consider that there are far more of us and the priority is to find scapegoats and for us to mitigate and minimise the effect of those scapegoats.