Methane : Care for Planet Earth

Derrick Hughes

Member
Location
Ceredigion
A 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
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
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
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

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.
 

Chris F

Staff Member
Media
Location
Hammerwich
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 . .

It also stands less people less methane. However technology has the answer to reduce methane production. Population growth is the main problem this world has. Cutting down rainforest to create pasture is clearly unacceptable, swapping one eco sytem for another isn't sustainable. However, much of UK production is or can easily be sustainable in terms of carbon and methane.

Eating local grown food sustainable food is the answer to this issue - it really isn't that complex. However everyone wants to fly, drive, eat as cheap as possible and they are happy to "blame" a few ruminants. The issue is a lot closer to home.
 
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
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. :rolleyes:
 
as long as you are happy with that answer thats great..... i aint


Tell you what.

After you've stopped Rich people from doing pointless activities like having mulitple foriegn holidays, super cars, multiple houses, commuting on business 1000s of miles a day ..

I'll have a look at a cow farting okay ?

Till then I'll treat your concern as just ANOTHER scam by the Super Rich to make money out of the poor.

Let me know when you've got the Space Tourism etc under control .. Okay ?
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
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
Neither 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.
 

Derrick Hughes

Member
Location
Ceredigion
Neither 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.
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
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
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
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!

The thing is: a properly reared grassfed animal is a health food - healthy for us, and the Earth.
The way cereals are most commonly grown has a deleterious effect on both of these, because of the adulteration.

Our food is meant to be our medicine, it was always thus.... but in the past few decades, that hasn't always been the case.
Something as simple as a cheap herbicide can destroy a plant's ability to pass on some essential amino acids that are crucial for animal health, hence the looming "first world epidemics" I mentioned earlier.

It's a funny old world where grazing ruminants are scrutinized and yet ag chemicals are detectable in our urine....
 

Treg

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cornwall
It's a funny old world where grazing ruminants are scrutinized and yet ag chemicals are detectable in our urine....
A clear indicator it's Big business behind the push to eat less meat, they want all farmers to be dependent on seeds & chemicals.
Unfortunately there's a proportion of society who can't see the dangers of BIG corporations telling us how to eat.
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" :banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

texas pete

Member
Location
East Mids
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" :banghead::banghead::banghead:

As we have discussed before, the only way to counter those antics is to own and control a greater part of the supply chain.
 

Cowgirl

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Ayrshire
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.
I can trump your termites in Africa with rice paddies in Asia, fracking in America and thawing permafrost in the arctic!
 

primmiemoo

Member
Location
Devon
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?


No it doesn't.

It's the skewed misinformation from those with an anti-meat agenda that's pushing pseudoscience and hijacking the media into parroting that.

Cattle and other domesticated ruminants are not contributing to global warming. The actions of humans in continuing to buy stuff, travel for leisure, demand overhot houses or aircon, and who use fossil fuels for all those activities are the cause of global warming and climate change.
 

martian

DD Moderator
BASE UK Member
Location
N Herts
I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is, beyond the obvious wind-up and class war rhetoric, but for information's sake, let's state a few facts.

Ruminants burp methane, they have to as the anaerobic bacteria in the rumen produce it and they'd blow up if they didn't burp. Grasslands which are grazed by ruminants are full of methanotrophic bacteria which feed on methane to make sugars etc to keep them going. Grassland also releases water vapour, via evapotranspiration, which will be partially split into hydroxyl radicals which break methane down into carbon dioxide. The hydroxyl radicals above grass are over a hundred times more numerous than they need to be to consume all the methane that the ruminants produce.

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...
 
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...


Not only are ruminants a force for good but they also make good use of land unfit for producing crops. Lowlands and highlands which are subject to flooding or harsh weather can produce good healthy food - food which is available ALL seasons with the help of the farmer. Whilst at the same time ruminants breakdown grassland for other life to flourish.

Ruminants are a part of the life cycle which has shaped the whole world and humans specifically .. a world without ruminants would probably suffer a great decrease in bio diversity and quantity of all life.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.0%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 66 35.1%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.0%
  • 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

  • 1,292
  • 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