New information about local nature recovery and landscape recovery

egbert

Member
Livestock Farmer
Why would you compare food & life with fossilised carbons ?

Do we really need to sequester Carbon anyway ? No, we don't. The reality is temperatures could rise several degrees in the UK and the net result would be a decrease in Carbon usage.

The problem - if any - is in areas of the world of already high heat. I don't see ANY evidence that world governments are concerned or doing anything to reduce temperatures in those regions.

Even building a canal and salt lake inland would help.

IMHO if someone cries Wolf and then does nothing to solve the problems - there is no problem. There is an alterior motive.


I'd point out another VERY obvious discrepancy with the cr@p about Woodland creation. IF Carbon Sequestration is important, then wood for building materials would be a priority. So Carbon could then be sequestered in property for 100s of years.

That's not happening.
I was going to point out the difference between carbon that's going round in short cycles (food/wood/peat/us etc), compared to carbon released from fossil fuels that's 350 million years old, laid down over millions of years under conditions we wouldn't recognise.

But then you got to the 'denialist' bit, and my eyes glazed over.
with you...... I'm out.
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
We could rewild a lot of gardens if the number of cats was reduced. Be cheaper than any elms sub.

And if front gardens were legally stopped from being gravelled or hard surfaced to provide easy care and off road parking for the two / three cars now used by many houses. Or in cities by entrepreneurial householder selling car park space. An ever bizarre world. The moon was brilliant at 5pm. At least that continues as usual.
 

egbert

Member
Livestock Farmer
Have they thought about where all these tree saplings will come from and the labour to plant them. This post doing the rounds on FB tells its own story. Woodland trust don’t want them .View attachment 1010780View attachment 1010781
Far too big to easily/happily move.
they'll soon be overtaken by smaller younger stock.

+ they're of unknown provenance...... I meet a lot of folk who think any oak growing in England is 'english oak'.... when
it ain't so.
 
Last edited:

egbert

Member
Livestock Farmer
Yes, I’m reasonably sure about it, though I’d like to see some proper research about it all.

As yet, I haven’t ventured down the Carbon trading route. But those who are buying, must think there is, or they wouldn’t be buying it.

I suppose one way of looking at it is like this:
Work out what the energy value of all you produce, which in may case is what the calorific energy of all the grain in my Grainstore is when full each year, then deduct the total energy it took to grow it. It is the photosynthesis process which is makes the total grain energy value exceed the energy value of growing it.

There is a policy of polluter pays, which in the case of the food that is eaten by those we grew it for, are responsible, not us. No matter how short lived the loop is.

A few years ago I did calculate that this 750 acre farm captured not far short of 10,000 tonnes of CO2 each year from the atmosphere.
I’m pretty sure it never took anything like as much CO2 to capture it .
No doubt we are heading towards the day when we all need to make these calculations.
But worst of all, so those we grow it for can feel better about the damage they want to continue to create!
Can I borrow you're calculator when I'm sending out invoices please?

Again....think carefully about the difference between carbon we're growing/rotting back down again, and what is being pumped out of the depths of the Gulf of Mexico/Yamal peninsula/Athabaska.

Cow burp methane (made of carbon and hydrogen, or grass and rain) might be in a cycle of less than 2 decades.
Oak trees and men....7-8 decades, 10 at a push
 

YorkshireTom25

Member
Arable Farmer
Nothing to do with food production. Like Henerar said on this thread early he likes the bps because he can spend it on hobbies, and Yorkshiretom said he wants it and doesn’t want to have to change his business that would be loss making without it. What a great state this industry is in.
It wouldn’t be loss making if the good prices stayed!
 

YorkshireTom25

Member
Arable Farmer
Lot of farms are not in the lucky position to change their business...
We can not grow much else than what we grow.
Nothing to diversify into when your in a deprived area.
Old outcrop land like some of ours won't yield enough to make hardly any profit most years.
It was brought into production via subsidys to feed the nation.
Without subsidy, lot of our rented land won't be viable to grow crops unless rent is massively reduced and we don't pay silly rent either..
Well said Vader hit the nail on the head!! More understanding than adj132!
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
Nothing to do with food production. Like Henerar said on this thread early he likes the bps because he can spend it on hobbies, and Yorkshiretom said he wants it and doesn’t want to have to change his business that would be loss making without it. What a great state this industry is in.
I said it could be spent on anything including hobbies, I didn't say what I do with it and nor am I going to as its up to me, which is what I like
 

YorkshireTom25

Member
Arable Farmer
I’m not understanding no, you said you didn’t want to change anything and that you deserved the bps because you are unviable without it.
I don’t need to change anything! I have plenty of hedging and buffer strips and set aside land in my opinion I am doing enough for wildlife!
 

DRC

Member
I don’t need to change anything! I have plenty of hedging and buffer strips and set aside land in my opinion I am doing enough for wildlife!
I think he means change things to make a profit without BPS , which to be fair, we’ve know was going for quite some time . Elms etc, will never replace BPS and stewardship combined
 

YorkshireTom25

Member
Arable Farmer
I think he means change things to make a profit without BPS , which to be fair, we’ve know was going for quite some time . Elms etc, will never replace BPS and stewardship combined
Yeah fair play but what exactly can we change? What needs changing is stopping stupid trade deals that belittle British farmers and it cert won’t.
 

DRC

Member
Yeah fair play but what exactly can we change? What needs changing is stopping stupid trade deals that belittle British farmers and it cert won’t.
You look like you’ve got some good soil from your picture. Every farm will be different and have to face their own problems . We have rent to pay , so focuses the mind .
 

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
Can I borrow you're calculator when I'm sending out invoices please?

Again....think carefully about the difference between carbon we're growing/rotting back down again, and what is being pumped out of the depths of the Gulf of Mexico/Yamal peninsula/Athabaska.

Cow burp methane (made of carbon and hydrogen, or grass and rain) might be in a cycle of less than 2 decades.
Oak trees and men....7-8 decades, 10 at a push
By all means, you can borrow my calculator. But you’ve probably got the same brand. It’s called a Windows XL spreadsheet.

The most stunning thing to me was the enormous increase in CO2 capture that Nitrate fertilisers is bringing to the equation due to enhanced photosynthesis. Many times more so than the CO2 that was emitted during the manufacturing process of it.
But this is the good news that they don’t want us to know or is easily forgotten.

Despite the fact that every bit of the CO2 that both U.K. CF fertiliser factories produce is used for other industries, such as in abattoirs and the soft fizzy drinks manufacturers. Which if you remember, the Government ordered the CF to start manufacturing again in September 2021 and also despite the fact that CO2 is a GHG that it wants to reduce!

The trouble is that there is a lot we do not know and that the media latch onto the bad news of, often distorting what is the actual situation or because nobody has actually performed and published the actual true situation.

It seems to me that farming and farmers are a far too easy target to blame. Thus the so called “Public Good” side of ELMs will probably end up being a sham.

If you want to distract the public from a problem, create a panic about something else. The word “Terrorism” is particularly motive in doing this.
But in this situation, I wonder if it is we farmers who are the ones actually being terrorised?



Then there’s Veganuary, Arla Dairy free milk, McDonalds Meat free burgers and Chickenless chicken, all of which the marketing gurus from the food processing companies that buy our meat and dairy produce jump upon to create extra sales at our expense based upon a Public ‘belief’ that all livestock is produced in an un-environmental way. Which isn’t the way we do it in the UK. And doesn’t even register compared to the damage their over-processed ‘Junk food’ they churn out causes!
Tofoo, anybody? Let’s knock down a bit more Amazon Rainforrest to grow the Soya it is made from and let the grass our cattle and sheep ate grow uneaten, then rot. Then let’s just casually forget about the fact that as it rots, it releases methane.
 
Last edited:

egbert

Member
Livestock Farmer
By all means, you can borrow my calculator. But you’ve probably got the same brand. It’s called a Windows XL spreadsheet.

The most stunning thing to me was the enormous increase in CO2 capture that Nitrate fertilisers is bringing to the equation due to enhanced photosynthesis. Many times more so than the CO2 that was emitted during the manufacturing process of it.
But this is the good news that they don’t want us to know or is easily forgotten.

Despite the fact that every bit of the CO2 that both U.K. CF fertiliser factories produce is used for other industries, such as in abattoirs and the soft fizzy drinks manufacturers. Which if you remember, the Government ordered the CF to start manufacturing again in September 2021 and also despite the fact that CO2 is a GHG that it wants to reduce!

The trouble is that there is a lot we do not know and that the media latch onto the bad news of, often distorting what is the actual situation or because nobody has actually performed and published the actual true situation.

It seems to me that farming and farmers are a far too easy target to blame. Thus the so called “Public Good” side of ELMs will probably end up being a sham.

If you want to distract the public from a problem, create a panic about something else. The word “Terrorism” is particularly motive in doing this.
But in this situation, I wonder if it is we farmers who are the ones actually being terrorised?



Then there’s Veganuary, Arla Dairy free milk, McDonalds Meat free burgers and Chickenless chicken, all of which the marketing gurus from the food processing companies that buy our meat and dairy produce jump upon to create extra sales at our expense based upon a Public ‘belief’ that all livestock is produced in an un-environmental way. Which isn’t the way we do it in the UK. And doesn’t even register compared to the damage their over-processed ‘Junk food’ they churn out causes!
Tofoo, anybody? Let’s knock down a bit more Amazon Rainforrest to grow the Soya it is made from and let the grass our cattle and sheep ate grow uneaten, then rot. Then let’s just casually forget about the fact that as it rots, it releases methane.
I suspect you need some chemistry lessons fella.
There's not a chance in hell that using natural gas to make fert, to make more grass grow is a net gain....what an absurd fantasy.

And what is the problem with grass growing , then rotting, when the methane involved is part of a short , and more or less closed loop?

Your logic is bust, and doesn't add to our cause.
Oh, but of course, you're the one thinking you're capturing 13 tonnes of CO2 per acre per year.
 

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

  • 1,291
  • 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