- Location
- sw scotland
The more grass the more carbon dioxide it uses?
Ok next questionA grassland stores most of its carbon underground where it's "safe" (unless we smash it up)
A forest, not so safe, ultimately a fair few trees fall victim to fire in some way, shape or form.
Both are beneficial, of course; but it depends on the environment itself as to what it's best suited for.
In terms of sequestration-ability then a decent heavy soil with plenty of diverse grasses etc will be capable of drawing down about as much Carbon as is possible, with correct management.
Monocultures of anything tend to not work as well as a proper "habitat", hence my disdain for planting incentives to put good grazing land into trees - it's fudgeing dumb, dumb as shite to further sponsor the loss of biodiversity via public monies IMVHO
Thanks thats great. 10% reduction will do for starters. Clearly its easy to halt reduction if we go beyond 10%
A greater area of grassland within UK is required with good management. this follows with
NFU say on BBC NEWS that grassland is good compound and straight feeds bad. Given all this apparently feed barley / wheat is bad. meat / milk price will have to rise accordingly to give profit
i agree it's releasing long term stored greenhouse gases you need to worry about
but also I am told methane does the damage ... so it clearly stands ,,,,,less ruminants less methane . .
Not everyone.With some of the new technology coming through, a reduce of 20% is quite easy. So as Professor Allen says, methane really isn't the issue.
You do know Rangerovers are considered a joke outside the UK. If you had any credibility (which you don't) we prefer to own Landcruiser's , so get your facts correct rather than espousing a myth.Farmers produce methane to make a big profit; they are obviously responsible for oversupply and should change their poor management. And manage cattle so less methane is produced. As well as the massive grants they all get properly rather than buying Range Rovers
I noticed one of the proposals was the development of perennial grain crops. Anybody done such a crop, what are the yields, types etc.
as long as you are happy with that answer thats great..... i aint
Neither of those is causing carbon pollution, that's up to the person in charge of them and the other people involved.Ok next question
100 lamb eating people eating lamb reared on P Pasure that stores carbon underground , more reliable than trees I've been told
Against 100 wheat eating people
Which is causing more carbon pollution
Why, may I ask?less volume of grass per acre, not less acres of grassland
So to sum up .if they got rid of all livestock and replaced it with Arable they could easily be in a worse boat than they are now , as arable land has to be cultivated every yearNeither of those is causing carbon pollution, that's up to the person in charge of them and the other people involved.
People have mastered the pollution side of practically everything, bar volcanoes .
Practically impossible to compare apples with apples, the lamb or wheat crop could either have a huge Carbon footprint or a tiny one; again it depends on management, and focus to a certain extent.
Unfortunately the "more intensive is better for the environment" motto repeated on here generally is quite false, if "intensive" requires a lot of energy consumption for a little bit of extra produce to give away.
No "could" about it, until such time as perennial cereals are developed, as well as harvesting tech can handle stripping ripe ears out of a polyculture - neither are here today, and a huge investment is made in keeping the status quo - plenty still believe that chemicals are the answer to all problems, without realising they've been the cause of most of the problems!So to sum up .if they got rid of all livestock and replaced it with Arable they could easily be in a worse boat than they are now , as arable land has to be cultivated every year
A clear indicator it's Big business behind the push to eat less meat, they want all farmers to be dependent on seeds & chemicals.It's a funny old world where grazing ruminants are scrutinized and yet ag chemicals are detectable in our urine....
Ssssh I've got to say this next bit very quietly... one of the large Veg growers (nowhere near here ) has started growing green manure between crops & has changed his cultivation system & is locally being praised for his improvements but he's scared for his lively hood that the supermarket he supplies finds out as they will drop the price they pay him because " they'll assume I'm making extra profit if I can afford to grow green manure between crops"
Whilst I am on the fence over GM this could be an area that would benefit from a bit of yield tweaking.There is one about called "Kernza" I found it on t'interweb.
Available in the US but not too special a yield and not easy to find a home for.
I can trump your termites in Africa with rice paddies in Asia, fracking in America and thawing permafrost in the arctic!What a load of RUBBISH.
The Earth grows vegetation yearly at an average rate.
Regardless of whether that vegetation is farmed or not .. an average rate of methane is created.
It doesn't matter if farms exist or not .. methane is a natural gas created by LIFE .. if a cow doesn't eat vegetation than some other mammal, fish, insect, bacteria or fungus WILL.
Millions of tonnes of methane exists in river deltas .. created by natural decomposition.
Stop falling for the rhetoric of those that want to tax others for MONEY.
As I understand it .. the biggest creator of methane on the plains of Africa is Termites.
All the scientific evedence now seems to point to cows killing the planet, so what do we do to halt there behaviour, or should all cows be outlawed?
This might be what the OP was talking about in suggesting farmers need to manage their animals better, but it is hard to tell. Anyway, pasture grazed ruminants are a force for good in the world, the ultimate health food. End of...