Methane

[Henarar]

But does feeding it to cattle increase methane or decrease methane into the atmosphere

the cows have to get it from somewhere, don't often see them down a mine or on an oil rig.

strangely there were cattle before climate warming which strangely started after we started burning fossil fuel in large quantities,
I know this don't fit with these idiots agenda but tough sh1t suck it up, perhaps if they had a beef sandwich and thought about it the brain food may help clear the fog

 

[Jimdog1]

the cows have to get it from somewhere, don't often see them down a mine or on an oil rig.

strangely there were cattle before climate warming which strangely started after we started burning fossil fuel in large quantities,
I know this don't fit with these idiots agenda but tough sh1t suck it up, perhaps if they had a beef sandwich and thought about it the brain food may help clear the fog

Exactly. Smart arses with a degree in half the story.

 

[Wolds Beef]

@The Ruminant Time you put your piece up again!!
They can not get it into there thick heads that Methane is part of the cycle>
WB

 

[thorpe]

The favoring of intensively grain feed beef to "reduce carbon footprint" nearly ignores the metabolic effects. Most feedlot cattle are slaughtered with liver abcesses from the constant acidosis, hence feeding them antibiotics to keep them alive until slaughter.

Echoes of the NHS valiantly medicating the illnesses of the obese fraction of our population.

we finish cattle on a high starch diet , yes we get a few liver abcesses , but we dont use any antibiotics!

 

[egbert]

There you go. The nice Mr Dimbleby has set out how you need to stop your cows destroying the planet. Bring them indoors and fit methane capturing masks.

Well done to the NFU. Top job you have done there in explaining why cows are part of the solution not part of the problem.

Methane suppressants One area of innovation that urgently needs Government support is reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from cattle and sheep. Farmed ruminants (mainly cattle and sheep) emit methane equivalent to 22 MtCO2e/year, which is almost half of all UK agricultural emissions.15 Methane emissions can be reduced by: • Rearing fewer ruminants, therefore eating less meat. • Capturing the methane they emit, either by moving them inside or by attaching devices to them (both of which could harm their welfare).16 • Reducing the amount of methane each animal emits (methane inhibition). There are a number of technologies for methane inhibition in development, but only one is so far commercially available: a feed additive called 3NOP. This has been found to have no impact on milk production or quality in dairy cattle, but its effects are short-lived so it needs to be given regularly in animal feed.17 This makes it less practical for use in the kind of extensive grazing systems that are common in the UK. Other additives are currently in development, including a seaweed called Asparagopsis. Lab trials in Australia have found that adding 2% Asparagopsis cattle feed could reduce methane emissions by 99%.18 In the longer term, selective breeding and “methane vaccines” may also provide a solution, particularly for sheep which are fed almost entirely on grass. Investing in these technologies offers our best hope of decarbonising livestock farming without massively reducing the number of farms in the sector and the amount of meat we can eat.

What a fudgin chump.
Given a brief, and scampers off to find the trendiest nonsense he can, accepting the initial bollix. Masks on cows....doesn't he stop and listen to what he's saying?

There's so much I want to say, mostly that I'm continually hurt that the lies about methane keep circulating, blaming my dear gentle coos who're quietly sat away on their hill hurting no-one.
Meanwhile, we can all keep flying on holidays because jet planes will be 'carbon neutral'.

Yes, what a fudgin chump

 

[thorpe]

What a fudgin chump.
Given a brief, and scampers off to find the trendiest nonsense he can, accepting the initial bollix. Masks on cows....doesn't he stop and listen to what he's saying?

There's so much I want to say, mostly that I'm continually hurt that the lies about methane keep circulating, blaming my dear gentle coos who're quietly sat away on their hill hurting no-one.
Meanwhile, we can all keep flying on holidays because jet planes will be 'carbon neutral'.

Yes, what a fudgin chump

i aint flying anyware , but i cant blame my daughter in law and grand kids wanting to go to see there family in nz , thank goodness for skype it does keep them in touch, but its not the same.

 

[jondear]

Channel 4 news they were on it all about cows and methane cutting milk and beef .No mention of other meat or other methane sources !
Angry lots !

 

[egbert]

i aint flying anyware , but i cant blame my daughter in law and grand kids wanting to go to see there family in nz , thank goodness for skype it does keep them in touch, but its not the same.

I gave up flying for 20 years, everyone else just carried on.
So I started again.
We are all to blame.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I

i aint flying anyware , but i cant blame my daughter in law and grand kids wanting to go to see there family in nz , thank goodness for skype it does keep them in touch, but its not the same.

If I look at my family tree, there are lots of people who emigrated to California and Canada, unfortunately for them, you go, you never see your old home or family again. Why, do we now think, we can move to the other side of the world and have the right to fly back and forth? If we want to see our family, don't move, if we want to move accept we can't see our family. Or we can have the right to fly back and forth and just do our own little bit to screw up the climate for the future of the planet!

 

[egbert]

I

If I look at my family tree, there are lots of people who emigrated to California and Canada, unfortunately for them, you go, you never see your old home or family again. Why, do we now think, we can move to the other side of the world and have the right to fly back and forth? If we want to see our family, don't move, if we want to move accept we can't see our family. Or we can have the right to fly back and forth and just do our own little bit to screw up the climate for the future of the planet!

it's not the once in a decade reunion flights that are the problem.

I often take an internal Uk flight- twice annually mebbe-, leaving very early to fly to the other end of the country for a business meeting.
And that flight is chock full of people doing likewise.
I often gently quiz my fellow travellers, and meet peeps flying 400 miles each way for a day out, or commuting.

Coupla years ago, i took a flight - well, 2 out and 2 back- for weekend herding coos in the alps, for fun.
No-one batted an eyelid.

There's a yawning chasm twixt what society needs to do, and what we think is perfectly normal and acceptable.

 

[Henarar]

it's not the once in a decade reunion flights that are the problem.

I often take an internal Uk flight- twice annually mebbe-, leaving very early to fly to the other end of the country for a business meeting.
And that flight is chock full of people doing likewise.
I often gently quiz my fellow travellers, and meet peeps flying 400 miles each way for a day out, or commuting.

Coupla years ago, i took a flight - well, 2 out and 2 back- for weekend herding coos in the alps, for fun.
No-one batted an eyelid.
There's a yawning chasm twixt what society needs to do, and what we think is perfectly normal and acceptable.

Perhaps each person should be given so many air miles per year only a few which you can save up, the fun bit would be weather to make them tradable or not

 

[egbert]

Perhaps each person should be given so many air miles per year only a few which you can save up, the fun bit would be weather to make them tradable or not

that's exactly right, but no, non-tradable.

 

[Jimdog1]

that's exactly right, but no, non-tradable.

But how will anyone make any money out of it?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

that's exactly right, but no, non-tradable.

If they were tradeable ("fungible" in financial parlance) it should only be back to government.

 

[texelburger]

Many such "articles" either contain no references so are just opinions. Many others give a reference but when you actually read the referenced source it doesn't support the assertion being made.

It's also increasingly common for published papers to make claims in their abstract (often the only bit visible for free) which the actual data does not support. Verging on fraud really.

It's also important to know who funded any research which can influence the interpretation of the results.

 

[Henarar]

that's exactly right, but no, non-tradable.

I would have enough to fly round the world three times while acquiring some new I can't stay home for more than two weeks best friends

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

It's also important to know who funded any research which can influence the interpretation of the results.

I fully support the campaign for ALL scientific studies to be recorded on a central register before they start. Publication of a study which was not registers in advance would become illegal.

The record would state the aims, method, funders and proposed timescale. It would be a fully public record. In this way we would finally get to see the scale of the issue of negative studies being stopped and buried. It would expose studies where the method was changed to extract a desired conclusion from the data (a common occurrence). It would also shine a light on funders who are pursuing a particular aim across multiple research teams.

There would be stiff resistance from many quarters but what valid reason is there to oppose it?

Oh, and "commercial confidentiality" must be specifically excluded as a defence.

 

[SilliamWhale]

Nitrogen is the real problem. A lot of methane rides vicariously on the back of introduced nitrogen

But as I've said before, we don't really know how to do without it without going genuinely hungry.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Nitrogen is the real problem. A lot of methane rides vicariously on the back of introduced nitrogen

But as I've said before, we don't really know how to do without it without going genuinely hungry.

We probably do if you follow the leading agro-ecology practitioners. It just doesn't fit the mainstream commercial system.

Much greater use of legumes.
Companion cropping (legumes and cereals together).
Cover cropping grazed off then followed by spring cereals.
Forage management in grazing systems that uses the AMP/ Voisin method.

 

[SilliamWhale]

We probably do if you follow the leading agro-ecology practitioners. It just doesn't fit the mainstream commercial system.

Much greater use of legumes.
Companion cropping (legumes and cereals together).
Cover cropping grazed off then followed by spring cereals.
Forage management in grazing systems that uses the AMP/ Voisin method.

I don't think those methods will yield enough. I've cover cropped plenty in my time - we still leak nitrogen and even need it to optimise cover crops. I think non nitrogen pastoral farming is very sustainable and can compete reasonably well but at it would definitely be at a cost to quality of life for people today never mind our grandchildren if we reduced current grain yields.

Certainly I don't think they will yield enough for the poorest to be able to afford the rise in prices from the lower yields. I often feel in all this climate stuff set up by the Dimblebys of this world we are forgetting that all those climate change energy levys etc affect the poorest the most.

One of my favourite books Thomas Hagers "Alchemy of Air" demonstrates how serious the lack of nitrogen was and is. Don't get me wrong the way we pee it about now is ott and grains are way undervalued but I still don't think we can do without it.