Methane : Care for Planet Earth

[NewFarmerSW1]

Don’t tell me, tell it to the UN report writers. You and I know livestock simply recycle carbon, it appears others don’t.

in the process ruminants release methane. less ruminants less methane . easy.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

in the process ruminants release methane. less ruminants less methane . easy.

Which is also part of a natural cycle.

It's releasing long term stored greenhouse gases you need to worry about, not those that form part of a cycle which isn't actually increasing.

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

Would have however they are sold out worldwide....

Thinking of going retro with a fully stacked G Wagen...

yeah better than those Bentleys -very ugly. prefer willys jeep meself

 

[Muddyroads]

in the process ruminants release methane. less ruminants less methane . easy.

So instead of being digested and turned into something useful, the vegetation will rot down. What does rotting vegetation create? Methane!
Simple cycle of life.

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

Which is also part of a natural cycle.

I, not those that form part of a cycle which isn't actually increasing.

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 . .

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

So instead of being digested and turned into something useful, the vegetation will rot down. What does rotting vegetation create? Methane!
Simple cycle of life.

Correct.......but extensive farming reduces the vegetation production..... less grass = less cows = less methane

 

[Samcowman]

Correct.......but extensive farming reduces the vegetation production..... less grass = less cows = less methane

Less ruminants in more brittle environments leads to more deserts. Not sure that’s a good thing for the amount of carbon floating around in the atmosphere.

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

I will trump your Professor Smith, with Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University. Who states that methane isn't the issue with regard to greenhouse gases. We do need to reduce methane output, but only by 10% to stop its effect on global warming, if we cut it by 20% it will contribute to global cooling.

He starts at 16:45 and you really should watch it.

So methane isn't the issue here and livestock production has the ability to have negative carbon footprint. Profit and saving the planet can go hand in hand.

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

 

[Muddyroads]

Correct.......but extensive farming reduces the vegetation production..... less grass = less cows = less methane

So what do you suggest is grown instead of grass, because the soil won’t remain bare?

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

Less ruminants in more brittle environments leads to more deserts. Not sure that’s a good thing for the amount of carbon floating around in the atmosphere.

i hear what you say but UK is the issue under our control

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

So what do you suggest is grown instead of grass, because the soil won’t remain bare?

less volume of grass per acre, not less acres of grassland

 

[Jackov Altraids]

That fits :
I am getting the impression the NFU thinks feed wheat / barley cereal farmers in the UK are not required milk beef lamb all from grass. So lots of Lincs Cambridgeshire area etal are going to be without a market ?

I have absolutely no idea what the NFU thinks.
I would imagine they haven't felt the need to defend wheat/ barley growers if everyone is going on a 'plant based diet' and using bio-fuel.
But when farming is done well, it works with nature to be as efficient as possible which also has to be the most sustainable way of producing food. Sadly, the small mixed farm that was the greatest example of this, is generally unviable.
As farming has become specialised, it has broken many of the natural systems to control and regenerate the flora and fauna of the farm. On a parish level, it is easy to see how a system would easily be made sustainable;
An arable farm would provide grain for people with excess/ poor quality sold to other farms to feed animals.
The poultry farm uses the corn to feed the chickens to provide eggs and meat and the muck could go to the arable farm to fertilise the corn.
The dairy farm produces the milk . Excess slurry goes to the arable farm, calves to a beef farm and sheep graze the excess grass in the winter.
The sheep farm provides wool for clothing, insulation and carpets, controls the growth of grasses without the need to burn fuel and provides meat.

etc etc.
I know I'm stating the obvious but too many forget the web of mutual benefit farming is.

 

[Muddyroads]

less volume of grass per acre, not less acres of grassland

My farm is organic, producing beef and lamb. How do you suggest I keep it as grass but grow less of it?

 

[Samcowman]

i hear what you say but UK is the issue under our control

Ok but in less brittle environments like ours the same techniques used to stop desertification can be used to store a lot of carbon down in the soil. A consequence of this is the soil will be more fertile and grow more grass.
Without the livestock to build fertility the soil will lose a lot more organic matter this increasing Carbon iodide in the atmosphere whilst also having to use more fossil fuel based fertiliser and we all know what the production of fossil fuel based fertiliser does for greenhouse gases. And it doesn’t reduce them.

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

Who pays "Professor Smith's" wages ?

Yes he is wrong ..

How "Carbon Neutral" are Universities ? Environment Agency ? Civil Service ?

How sustainable is London ? Birmingham ? the M25 ? M1 ?

Why have the London commute when not only can those jobs be done cheaper locally where people live but also cost less CO2.

I think you are full of BS .. there isn't a government department that isn't MASSIVELY Carbon negative ..

How about the BBC ? ITV ? SKY ?


All these massive hot air bags venting about other people whilst the biggest creators of Carbon Dioxide are these very detractors.

Always makes me smile when David Attenborough lectures people about the "Environment" .. David and his 50 or so BBC crews have flown all over the world for decades .. I bet their Carbon Dioxide creation has been off the scale.


The UN ? I bet their usage of Carbon is astronomical .. pull the other one.

This has NEVER been about Carbon .. if it was then the biggest users - those with the super cars, mega yachts, private jets etc would have been stopped IMMEDIATELY - meanwhile the poorest in society pay the MOST for the little power they use.

This is about MONEY & POWER.

This is about making poor people poorer and rich people richer.

If you want to obey a bunch of hypocrites .. that's your problem.

you are correct all the above expel carbon / methane and other pollutants. iam quoting professor smith never wether i agree with him. however farmers do profit from the when methanes produced bt their cows /sheep

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Ok but in less brittle environments like ours the same techniques used to stop desertification can be used to store a lot of carbon down in the soil. A consequence of this is the soil will be more fertile and grow more grass.
Without the livestock to build fertility the soil will lose a lot more organic matter this increasing Carbon iodide in the atmosphere whilst also having to use more fossil fuel based fertiliser and we all know what the production of fossil fuel based fertiliser does for greenhouse gases. And it doesn’t reduce them.

Those same techniques used here also increase the water absorption capacity of the soil - reducing flooding in winter (and summer storms) and improving grass growth during prolonged dry periods, thus reducing reliance on conserved forage (made using fossil fuel). What's not to like?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

you are correct all the above expel carbon / methane and other pollutants. iam quoting professor smith never wether i agree with him. however farmers do profit from the when methanes produced bt their cows /sheep

And I wish they would be more clear and honest and simply say that the amount of livestock needs to be reduced rather than we should reduce eating meat.

 

[Henarar]

Less ruminants in more brittle environments leads to more deserts. Not sure that’s a good thing for the amount of carbon floating around in the atmosphere.

We need more cattle in some places many more not less

 

[Samcowman]

you are correct all the above expel carbon / methane and other pollutants. iam quoting professor smith never wether i agree with him. however farmers do profit from the when methanes produced bt their cows /sheep

Farmers actually profit more when their cattle produce less methane due to them growing faster or converting more efficiently

 

[NewFarmerSW1]

My farm is organic, producing beef and lamb. How do you suggest I keep it as grass but grow less of it?
[/QUO



if no inputs are of an external source then there is no need to reduce production I cant see how there could be criticism
and no doubt Stock ratios would be to suit optimal grassland management.
TE]