Methane

Poncherello1976

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Oxfordshire
I am happy to be corrected, and hold my hands up.
Though surely burning fossil fuels is using energy that was sent here millions of years ago by the sun? That is what I meant. Am I wrong?
This then adds another input to the carbon cycle that was not expected!
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
I am happy to be corrected, and hold my hands up.
Though surely burning fossil fuels is using energy that was sent here millions of years ago by the sun? That is what I meant. Am I wrong?
This then adds another input to the carbon cycle that was not expected!

The heat from burning the stuff is trivial compared to the effect of putting a nice duvet around the planet - especially if the duvet acts in one direction more than the other and let’s in energy but stops it being radiated away again.
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
Too much wine! I agree that we are trapping too much of the energy coming to the earth at the moment, it is because we have used to much prehistoric energy with fossil fuels that means the current energy is being trapped!

That’s fair, but I wouldn’t hazard as to the make up of the greenhouse gases and the origins of the individual contributors.
 

Poncherello1976

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Oxfordshire
That’s fair, but I wouldn’t hazard as to the make up of the greenhouse gases and the origins of the individual contributors.
I am in the same boat. But my basic understanding of it all is, and what I meant in my post a few minutes ago, is that burning fossil fuels is releasing energy locked up slowly over thousands/millions of years, and being released in 150 years! This makes a blanket round the earth, which could coincide with all sorts of other natural phenomena! I probably just jumped in a bit quick!
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Let’s get the facts right. Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and then degrades after some time into carbon dioxide, some of which will in time be taken up by plants.
Agreed.

It is always worse to emit methane than to emit carbon dioxide.
No.

The CO² that went into the plants the animals ingested to produce the methane was cycled recently out of the atmosphere. This is in no way comparable in warming impact overt human timescales to CO² emissions which derive from fossil carbon sources.

There's nothing simple about accounting for the climate effect of methane, unlike CO² or N²O. Both of those persist for long periods (100 years +) and so their effect keeps accumulating over the timescales we humans are interested in.

Methane, on the other hand, breaks down naturally in the atmosphere over an average of around 12 years but has a warming effect some 70 times as great as CO² in the year it's emitted. Overall its warming effect is considered by most climate science researchers to be around 28 times that of CO² for 12 years then drops (to nothing if it was derived from new plant growth but to the single CO² equivalent if it was derived from a long term carbon source like cthallates in permafrost or from oil and gas wells).

The most critical issue for the warming impact of methane on the atmosphere is thus whether the rate of its release is increasing or decreasing over a rolling 12 year timeframe.

Emissions from ruminant livestock ARE increasing globally, due to rising cattle numbers, but falling here in the UK as stock numbers decline. Does that mean we UK livestock producers are or are not part of the problem? If you argue it's immaterial where in the world the methane is emitted and so our ruminant numbers have to decline even more (as do most climate campaigners, the CCC and last week's National Food Strategy) then surely UK residents are just as liable for the fossil fuel emissions of every other country. You can't logically argue one without the other.

If you take the opposite view then the logical consequence would be that we only need to cut consumption of ruminant meat produced overseas in countries whose livestock numbers have increased in the last 12 years.

In any case, cutting ruminant methane emissions by whatever means only buys a short-lived reduction in warming. Unless we cut fossil fuel CO² emissions dramatically at the same time it is just timewasting.
 
Last edited:

Crapfarmer

Member
Livestock Farmer
Agreed.


No.

The CO² that went into the plants the animals ingested to produce the methane was cycled recently out of the atmosphere. This is in no way comparable CO² emissivions which derive from fossil carbon sources.

There's nothing simple about accounting for the climate effect of methane, unlike CO² or N²O. Both of those persist for long periods (100 years +) and so their effect keeps accumulating over the timescales we humans are interested in.

Methane, on the other hand, breaks down naturally in the atmosphere over an average of around 12 years but has a warming effect some 70 times as great at CO² in the year it's emitted. Overall its warming effect is considered by most climate science researchers to be around 28 times that of CO² for 12 years then drops (to nothing if it was derived from new plant growth but to the single CO² equivalent if it was derived from a long term carbon source like cthallates in permafrost or from oil and gas wells).

The most critical issue for the warming impact of methane on the atmosphere is thus whether the rate of its release is increasing or decreasing over a rolling 12 year timeframe.

Emissions from ruminant livestock ARE increasing globally due to rising cattle numbers but falling here in the UK as stock numbers decline. Does that mean we UK livestock producers are or are not part of the problem? If you argue it's immaterial where in the world the methane is emitted and so our ruminant numbers have to decline even more (as do most climate campaigners, the CCC and last week's National Food Strategy) then surely UK residents are just as liable for the fossil fuel emissions of every other country. You can't logically argue one without the other.

If you take the opposite view then the logical consequence would be that we only need to cut consumption of ruminant meat produced overseas in countries whose livestock numbers have increased in the last 12 years.

In any case, cutting ruminant methane emissions by whatever means only buys a short-lived reduction in warming. Unless we cut fossil fuel CO² emissions dramatically at the same time it is just timewasting.
You guys or girls are far more articulate in the way you describe the goings on in the atmosphere, but I think we all agree that fossil fuels are the main culprit of climate change and only huge reductions in there use will have any effect
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
A tad disingenuous.

Let’s get the facts right. Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and then degrades after some time into carbon dioxide, some of which will in time be taken up by plants. It is always worse to emit methane than to emit carbon dioxide. Sure, it is in part a natural cycle, but atoms and molecules are fully transferable and if the plants didn’t take up the CO2 that came from the methane that the cows burped and farted, they would take up other CO2 instead
And do what with it if there were no cows to eat it ?
 
A tad disingenuous.

Let’s get the facts right. Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and then degrades after some time into carbon dioxide, some of which will in time be taken up by plants. It is always worse to emit methane than to emit carbon dioxide. Sure, it is in part a natural cycle, but atoms and molecules are fully transferable and if the plants didn’t take up the CO2 that came from the methane that the cows burped and farted, they would take up other CO2 instead
Livestock have evolved on this planet over many thousands of years yet the problems with global warming seem to have come about since humans have been burning copious amounts of fossil fuels, I think it’s fair to say livestock aren’t the problem despite many humans wanting to make them a scapegoat so they can carry on as before
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer

I think we are on the same page really, small details aside

Perhaps I should have written “the release of a mole of methane will always have a larger greenhouse effect than a mole of carbon dioxide”.

I take issue with the suggestion that the source of the molecule affects the effect, but that’s really a feature of accounting rather than any genuine difference.

And do what with it if there were no cows to eat it ?

We could turn it into peat, or coal or some other future fossil fuel. I think there’s some on here who think it can become OM stored in soil even.
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
I think we are on the same page really, small details aside

Perhaps I should have written “the release of a mole of methane will always have a larger greenhouse effect than a mole of carbon dioxide”.

I take issue with the suggestion that the source of the molecule affects the effect, but that’s really a feature of accounting rather than any genuine difference.



We could turn it into peat, or coal or some other future fossil fuel. I think there’s some on here who think it can become OM stored in soil even.
yep the cows work with pasture to do just that
 
This is a challenging read:

One of the biggest problems for ruminant agriculture (perhaps why the GWP* message is continuing to fall on deaf ears) is because they’re targeting methane reduction in order to buy time for the CO2 emissions to fall:

If we don't meet the agricultural methane emissions reduction targets set out in the IPCC 1.5 degrees report, global CO2 emissions will have to decline even faster to meet the temperature objective. Significantly reducing methane emissions from livestock would increase the amount of total CO2 that can be emitted while remaining under these temperature limits, and so may make them more attainable. Reducing agricultural methane emissions by more than target could potentially delay – but not avoid – the date of net-zero CO2 emissions by a few more years. Integrated economic-climate models show how eliminating ruminant methane could delay the rate at which a complete shift to clean energy is required, and so make this transition cheaper.
These are not issues that are introduced or solved through GHG emission metrics; questions of how, how fast and by whom different emission reductions are made are embedded in broader moral or political considerations.
 
And the other problems. Some of which are harder to argue ourselves out of than others.


Problem 2 – demand for meat and dairy in developing regions
Stabilising global ruminant methane emissions at today’s levels would require those of us in, for example, Europe, the Americas and Oceania who already eat much more than the global average to reduce our consumption, given the growth in the world’s population and the rising demand for meat and dairy in developing regions that currently have much lower consumption per capita.

Problem 3 – globally, ruminant numbers are increasing
Stabilisation is in any case not on the cards. Projections are for an increase in ruminant production, and this translates into increases in methane (and other) emissions and, consequently, in extra warming (in reality, regardless whether reported using GWP100 or GWP*). Failure to curtail the demand for ruminant products will make it harder, if not impossible, to meet the climate commitments set out in the Paris Agreement.

Problem 4 – its not just the methane – it’s land use and land use opportunity cost
There is a potential opportunity cost in not using this land for other climate mitigation purposes, including for carbon capture and/or bioenergy, or for other reasons such as biodiversity conservation. It is worth emphasising that even if we had a ‘separate basket’ climate policy that treated methane differently to CO2, land-use would likely prove the ultimate constraint on ruminant production, since most models suggest we will require substantial additional land for carbon sequestration and bioenergy if we are to reach net-zero CO2 emissions within a timeframe compatible with warming at 1.5-2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
This is a challenging read:

One of the biggest problems for ruminant agriculture (perhaps why the GWP* message is continuing to fall on deaf ears) is because they’re targeting methane reduction in order to buy time for the CO2 emissions to fall:

If we don't meet the agricultural methane emissions reduction targets set out in the IPCC 1.5 degrees report, global CO2 emissions will have to decline even faster to meet the temperature objective. Significantly reducing methane emissions from livestock would increase the amount of total CO2 that can be emitted while remaining under these temperature limits, and so may make them more attainable. Reducing agricultural methane emissions by more than target could potentially delay – but not avoid – the date of net-zero CO2 emissions by a few more years. Integrated economic-climate models show how eliminating ruminant methane could delay the rate at which a complete shift to clean energy is required, and so make this transition cheaper.
These are not issues that are introduced or solved through GHG emission metrics; questions of how, how fast and by whom different emission reductions are made are embedded in broader moral or political considerations.
That's quite a useful summary, especially for FCRN! It does largely ignore a major point though except in passing in this foornote:

A distinction emerges here between biogenic methane (methane from biological sources such as agriculture or wetlands) and fossil methane (‘natural gas’ leakage). For biogenic methane, this CO2 resulting from methane breakdown does not represent an additional source of carbon in the atmosphere, while for fossil methane it does. For further information on the breakdown of methane, including this point, see section 3 of our explainer Agricultural Methane and its Role as a Greenhouse Gas

A significant proportion of methane being emitted around the world is NOT from enteric fermentation of ruminants. Some is from fossil sources (VERY bad as it is adding prehistoric CO2 when it degrades so acts like methane in the short term and fossil CO2 in the long term). Most of this is from leakage from the oil and gas industry, now thought to be at least 10x greater than they have hitherto admitted. Some is from rice cultivation. Some is from landfills. Some is from mains gas leakage (fossil source again at present). Some is from termites. A rapidly increasing source is from melting permafrost releasing cthallates.

If we are going to decide to buy time by cutting methane surely we must cut ALL of these as well?

And, if we do so, we MUST THEN RAPIDLY CEASE FOSSIL FUEL USE or we have just wasted the time gained.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
And the other problems. Some of which are harder to argue ourselves out of than others.


Problem 2 – demand for meat and dairy in developing regions
Stabilising global ruminant methane emissions at today’s levels would require those of us in, for example, Europe, the Americas and Oceania who already eat much more than the global average to reduce our consumption, given the growth in the world’s population and the rising demand for meat and dairy in developing regions that currently have much lower consumption per capita.

Problem 3 – globally, ruminant numbers are increasing
Stabilisation is in any case not on the cards. Projections are for an increase in ruminant production, and this translates into increases in methane (and other) emissions and, consequently, in extra warming (in reality, regardless whether reported using GWP100 or GWP*). Failure to curtail the demand for ruminant products will make it harder, if not impossible, to meet the climate commitments set out in the Paris Agreement.

Problem 4 – its not just the methane – it’s land use and land use opportunity cost
There is a potential opportunity cost in not using this land for other climate mitigation purposes, including for carbon capture and/or bioenergy, or for other reasons such as biodiversity conservation. It is worth emphasising that even if we had a ‘separate basket’ climate policy that treated methane differently to CO2, land-use would likely prove the ultimate constraint on ruminant production, since most models suggest we will require substantial additional land for carbon sequestration and bioenergy if we are to reach net-zero CO2 emissions within a timeframe compatible with warming at 1.5-2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures
Problem 4: Stopping using land capable of economically producing human edible foods for growing livestock feed is a good thing I believe (Goodbye barley fed beef etc). Stopping deforrestation to graze or grow feeds for livestock is a no-brainer. However, ALL of these analyses fail to adequately recognise the issue that very little of the land currently grazing livestock in the UK can ECONOMICALLY produce human edible crops though. Unless it is profitable framers will not do it. Even worse, for the alternative use argument, some studies have recently indicated that simply converting pasture to woodland can actually EMIT carbon.

None of this is easy.

Easy to understand.
Easy to change.
Easy to live with.
 
In my opinion , global warming is a farce , the world has changed for millions of years and will continue to do so . this week we have high temperatures , and there all saying it’s global warming , I didn’t hear them talking about the North Artic sea ice increasing this year by 340,000 sq km which it did, Canada had its coldest winter on record , yet it’s global warming, talking about cutting cattle numbers , there forgetting that these cattle feed the people , the world population is rising by 222,000 every day and 31,000 die every day from hunger. So talking about cutting cattle numbers is rubbish, no talk about cutting coal fired electricity stations , or airplanes flying around bringing people on holidays , with the sun here this week , there’s no need for sun holidays this year . No carbon tax on air planes or cruise ships. The whole thing is madness but could put us out of business ,
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
And the other problems. Some of which are harder to argue ourselves out of than others.


Problem 2 – demand for meat and dairy in developing regions
Stabilising global ruminant methane emissions at today’s levels would require those of us in, for example, Europe, the Americas and Oceania who already eat much more than the global average to reduce our consumption, given the growth in the world’s population and the rising demand for meat and dairy in developing regions that currently have much lower consumption per capita.

Problem 3 – globally, ruminant numbers are increasing
Stabilisation is in any case not on the cards. Projections are for an increase in ruminant production, and this translates into increases in methane (and other) emissions and, consequently, in extra warming (in reality, regardless whether reported using GWP100 or GWP*). Failure to curtail the demand for ruminant products will make it harder, if not impossible, to meet the climate commitments set out in the Paris Agreement.

Problem 4 – its not just the methane – it’s land use and land use opportunity cost
There is a potential opportunity cost in not using this land for other climate mitigation purposes, including for carbon capture and/or bioenergy, or for other reasons such as biodiversity conservation. It is worth emphasising that even if we had a ‘separate basket’ climate policy that treated methane differently to CO2, land-use would likely prove the ultimate constraint on ruminant production, since most models suggest we will require substantial additional land for carbon sequestration and bioenergy if we are to reach net-zero CO2 emissions within a timeframe compatible with warming at 1.5-2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures
"If we are to reach" . . . . . . an arbitary target that we've come up with.

One of the ways that might in our heads bring about a tiny change is to attempt to stop the increase in consumption of meat and dairy in other parts of the world that could frankly do with improved nutrition. By doing this those of us in power in the affluent countries can avoid grasping the fossil fuel nettle because that would REALLY sting.

We could also admit to ourselves that the fossil fuels we have ALREADY burned will continue to compound climate change long after we're gone. Fannying around blaming ruminants is what we've come up with to distract everyone for a while.
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
Could it be that global warming is nothing to do with emissions but just burning stuff? I light the fire in my sitting room and it gets warmer. As part of that CO2 happens to be released.
Rural glens get frosts, towns and cities don't because they produce a lot more heat. 100 million 90 degree hot car engines won't help either. Eventually the whole world gets warmer.
Cows at 39 degrees hardly radiating much.
OK it is science for dummies (me) but historically we have hundreds of examples of linking cause and effect by measuring the wrong markers
You raise a valid point, virtually nothing we "do" or "build" makes anything any cooler. We build less thick landscapes, put down tarmac and concrete and put highly reflective coatings on everything

My exhaust pipe isn't making anything cooler, nor is the heat from the engine

in short I think you'd need to be a special kind of stupid to claim human activities have contributed nothing to climate change, but they're on here
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 76 43.7%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.6%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 27 15.5%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 3 1.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,284
  • 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