Soil carbon is a highly flawed climate policy ?

[Clive]

there are lots of different kinds of livestock farming all over the world

to say all are good or are bad is ridiculous

truth is some are environmentally good and some are bad, we need to differentiate better as UK livestock is generally more good than bad !

 

[delilah]

there are lots of different kinds of livestock farming all over the world

to say all are good or are bad is ridiculous

truth is some are environmentally good and some are bad, we need ti differentiate better as UK livestock is generally more good than bad !

We are talking - correct me if I am wrong - about how UK ag should counter all of the crap being hurled at it.
You want to drive a wedge down the middle of UK livestock production by saying that some of it is good for the environment and some of it is bad for the environment ?
That would be as divisive as saying that ploughing is destroying the planet and should be illegal. Who in their right mind would say that ?

 

[Clive]

We are talking - correct me if I am wrong - about how UK ag should counter all of the crap being hurled at it.
You want to drive a wedge down the middle of UK livestock production by saying that some of it is good for the environment and some of it is bad for the environment ?
That would be as divisive as saying that ploughing is destroying the planet and should be illegal. Who in their right mind would say that ?

yes - some livestock is good environmentally and some is bad

i don’t want to “drive a wedge“ but its (inconveniently) true

as i say the UK is a lot more good than many other countries however

we need to differentiate honestly

 

[Suffolk Serf]

The truth is that the whole of agriculture in the UK needs to act together, as one, to counter the "meat production destroys the planet" argument.
Divided we WILL fall.
We are all part of it, even if you think that you only produce, for example, milling wheat for breadmaking, there are co products of flour milling that go into livestock feed and there are numerous other reasons why we are all in this together.
It is true that there are parts that are better than others but that serves our detractors with just what they want, a divided industry.
Never before have we needed the NFU as much, they must get to grip with this.

 

[BrianV]

Surely one of the main causes of pollution is human migration, as ever larger numbers move from the country to cities the need for new houses, heating, transport systems & consumerism including cars grows ever greater & greater. China's explosion in pollution started with poorer people from the country moving to cities for a better standard of living & this is being replicated all over the world.
Changes in farming methods & eating less meat will make an infinitesimal difference to the climate as a whole & is simply an easy target for city dwellers who are the real problem.

 

[BrianV]

The truth is that the whole of agriculture in the UK needs to act together, as one, to counter the "meat production destroys the planet" argument.
Divided we WILL fall.
We are all part of it, even if you think that you only produce, for example, milling wheat for breadmaking, there are co products of flour milling that go into livestock feed and there are numerous other reasons why we are all in this together.
It is true that there are parts that are better than others but that serves our detractors with just what they want, a divided industry.
Never before have we needed the NFU as much, they must get to grip with this.

I fear the NFU have the interests of their major paymasters the big estates take priority over traditional small farmers, tree planting & other such fads are only financially beneficial if you are a large land owner, for the rest of us it is simply a distraction from making agriculture profitable.

 

[Clive]

The truth is that the whole of agriculture in the UK needs to act together, as one, to counter the "meat production destroys the planet" argument.
Divided we WILL fall.
We are all part of it, even if you think that you only produce, for example, milling wheat for breadmaking, there are co products of flour milling that go into livestock feed and there are numerous other reasons why we are all in this together.
It is true that there are parts that are better than others but that serves our detractors with just what they want, a divided industry.
Never before have we needed the NFU as much, they must get to grip with this.

it’s not simple as acting together - globally speaking agriculture does some BAD things (livestock and combinable). even different uk livestock and combinable systems are not equal and are not ALL good

we need to differentiate - trying to defend it all just flaws the good arguments we have

NFU - really they do not have a clue here, and have possibly the worst PR / comms in the history of comms and pr ! they are still hurting from brexit and busy in bed with red tractor etc - if you’re waiting for them to be the super heroes of uk ag you are going to be VERY disappointed

 

[Suffolk Serf]

it’s not simple as acting together - globally speaking agriculture does some BAD things (livestock and combinable). even different uk livestock and combinable systems are not equal and are not ALL good

we need to differentiate - trying to defend it all just flaws the good arguments we have

NFU - really they do not have a clue here, and have possibly the worst PR / comms in the history of comms and pr ! they are still hurting from brexit and busy in bed with red tractor etc - if you’re waiting for them to be the super heroes of uk ag you are going to be VERY disappointed

The trouble is that it is quite a complex argument for regenerative practices, that is yet to be fully absorbed and even partially understood by most farmers and pretty much all politicians, advisors, lobbyists, journalists, Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
Also, some of it is yet to be fully scientifically proven (for various vested interest reasons probably).
There is a quite simple message though that should be pushed at every opportunity, that "agriculture is part of the solution".

 

[The Seeker]

listend to a show the other day, the lady stated that altho it was very difficult to quantify the amount of carbon stored in soil, and there wa in fact very little hard evidence on the subject she felt it must be a lot ..... what sort of self respecting person would comet with that statement ffs.

 

[Henarar]

yes - some livestock is good environmentally and some is bad

i don’t want to “drive a wedge“ but its (inconveniently) true

as i say the UK is a lot more good than many other countries however

we need to differentiate honestly

So @Clive Which livestock is good environmentally and which is bad in your opinion?

 

[Storeman]

So @Clive Which livestock is good environmentally and which is bad in your opinion?

Oxen very bad.
They pulled ploughs in the past and in some countries they still do .

 

[EddieB]

And he’s not direct drilling,he’s one pass drilling ! Every time he goes over the land with his drill he is releasing carbon not to mention how much his cover crop releases as it rots down

Of course cover crops absorb more CO2 growing than they release on rotting down. The above ground biomass is released back into the air but the root biomass isn’t. Carbon is cycled continuously and an active carbon cycle is essential for soil health.
One of the biggest threatening food security is soil erosion, which cover crops are a valuable tool in combating. No soil, no food or farming, it makes sense to protect it.

 

[Cowabunga]

yes - some livestock is good environmentally and some is bad

i don’t want to “drive a wedge“ but its (inconveniently) true

as i say the UK is a lot more good than many other countries however

we need to differentiate honestly

We really don't. The less coarse grass a cow eats and the higher the level of concentrates while limiting excessive protein, the lower their methane emissions and the higher your grain price. However that may be very unpopular and inconvenient for some. So best not shake that bag in case something nasty crawls out.

 

[delilah]

it’s not simple as acting together

yes it is.

we need to differentiate

no we don't

NFU - really they do not have a clue here, and have possibly the worst PR / comms in the history of comms and pr ! they are still hurting from brexit and busy in bed with red tractor etc - if you’re waiting for them to be the super heroes of uk ag you are going to be VERY disappointed

You have just managed to completely contradict yourself in one post.

The NFU do need to get their act together. But they can only do that by representing all of UK ag. Not just the good cows - whichever you think they are - but all of the cows. Not just the DD'ers, but all crop growers.

You are saying the NFU are failing, and then giving them an impossible task.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

His point 3 is spot on: measuring soil carbon content with any real accuracy (which matters a lot if you are going to pay on it, especially if a 0.1% increase triggers a payment) is disproportionately expensive. Plenty of scientists are working on landscape scale soil OM assessment using satellites but that is never going to be anywhere near accurate enough. Also to what depth do you sample? It IS possible to build soil OM deep in the soil with deep rooting crops, even over a metre. That's largely the answer to his incorrect point about reaching the point of stasis. Those applying the process really well find the soil gets deeper so the sequestration keeps on going.

His point 4 about locking up nutrients is, I believe, based on poor studies. Once the soil biology really gets moving then mineral and nutrient availability greatly exceeds what any crop needs. Increasing soil OM in a biologically active soil even raise ph without use of lime.

I have posted before that I am fundamentally opposed to carbon offsets. They simply allow businesses and individuals to avoid facing the effects of their choices and to massage their guilt complex. If we intend to avoid 2°C rise then we have to virtually abandon fossil fuels.

Oh, and if he's critical of wasting money paying farmers to sequester carbon at the current price offered then how does he justify the massive R&D money going into CCS which has mostly failed so far and the few that have seemed to work have cost well over £100/T C sequestered? So far Scotland has spent over £600M on the CCS project at their remaining coal power station over 10 years with no success. And what's the big difference between paying farmers to encourage a beneficial land practice they might eventually have adopted anyway and paying huge subsidies to Shenhua mining to open new coal mines for export which never even deliver the jobs they'd promised?

 

[BrianV]

Here's a novel idea as farmers are once again being blamed for polluting our rivers on Countryfile how about ALL farmers refusing to accept sewage sludge onto their farmland, it seems to me we are getting the blame for city dwellers bi products, it's time they shared the burden!!!

 

[EddieB]

Here's a novel idea as farmers are once again being blamed for polluting our rivers on Countryfile how about ALL farmers refusing to accept sewage sludge onto their farmland, it seems to me we are getting the blame for city dwellers bi products, it's time they shared the burden!!!

Here’s the thing, environmental pollution comes from all sorts of sources, industry, agriculture, many human activities inherent in modern society. I don’t think that denying that agriculture is a source of pollution benefits the farming industry, but a discussion needs to be had about how to mitigate it, what levels of pollution are acceptable in the context of wider society, taking into the account the need for affordable food to be available at ever increasing quantities.
I can’t imagine that many farmers set out to pollute, but nitrates and phosphates enter our watercourses from farm land, soil gets washed into rivers along with pesticide residue. Society needs to rationally balance food security with environmental harm, as it does with energy, transport and general consumerism.
I’m certainly not trying to denigrate us farmers, but we have to be aware of how what we do affects the wider environment, and how this might be perceived.

 

[BrianV]

Here’s the thing, environmental pollution comes from all sorts of sources, industry, agriculture, many human activities inherent in modern society. I don’t think that denying that agriculture is a source of pollution benefits the farming industry, but a discussion needs to be had about how to mitigate it, what levels of pollution are acceptable in the context of wider society, taking into the account the need for affordable food to be available at ever increasing quantities.
I can’t imagine that many farmers set out to pollute, but nitrates and phosphates enter our watercourses from farm land, soil gets washed into rivers along with pesticide residue. Society needs to rationally balance food security with environmental harm, as it does with energy, transport and general consumerism.
I’m certainly not trying to denigrate us farmers, but we have to be aware of how what we do affects the wider environment, and how this might be perceived.

Then how about city dwellers disposing of their own waste for a start!

 

[EddieB]

Then how about city dwellers disposing of their own waste for a start!

As I said, all aspects of pollution need addressing, whether it’s industry, farming, transport or just general human activity. I suspect that the rural population also takes the odd dump when their bowels are full.

 

[BrianV]

As I said, all aspects of pollution need addressing, whether it’s industry, farming, transport or just general human activity. I suspect that the rural population also takes the odd dump when their bowels are full.

Probably not in the quantities & the additional added extras!