someone writing in the Farmers Weekly has FINALLY got it

[Cowabunga]

Well yes, and it's a shame this part has got derailed here frankly.

Farmers are absolutely useless at this kind of thing. Unfortunately in this case, so are the NFU who just do not defend our industry in that hard, targeted, precise way.

 

[Henarar]

All he is doing is trotting out the NFU line. 1% of the electorate are responsible for 10% of UK GHG emissions. Muppet.

where did he mention 1% or 10% ?

 

[Hampton]

Thats like saying airline pilots (probably 0.1% of the population) are responsible for whatever % of GHG emissions forgetting the 200 passengers behind them who want to sun themselves.

If you were to place all the blame on the passengers then You absolve the airline of any responsibility.
It is precisely this equation that the likes of Branson and bezos use to justify their nonsense space programs whilst claiming they are carbon neutral

 

[egbert]

Yes but the cow itself emits less methane and there is a chance to capture much of what it does. The diesel used is almost insignificant per animal. That isn't even on anyone's agenda unless you make it so. Delilah is correct in that there should be no dissection of minute details. The message needs to be clear and concise. The cow does not increase greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It just doesn't. No more now than ever in history. Completely different to man-made CO2 production from fossil fuel combustion which accumulates year on year as more fossil fuel is burnt.
Even the production of Ammonium Nitrate and the large amount of CO2 produced should NOT be counted as agricultural emissions, when we now know it is captured and is essential for use in other industries including the cooling of UK nuclear power plants and the social drinks sector. It is important enough for the Government to step in to actually pay CF Industries to keep on producing it, so they can hardly demonise it with the same breath and land the consequences on agriculture.

and what exactly is the problem with methane from cow burps?

Cow burps don't add to global warming - as is succinctly pointed out, and as I spend quite a lot of time pointing out in other arenas myself.
Burning diesel does...end of.

And if you think you'll sell the twaddle about how making fert is a good thing.... i cannot help you.

 

[Henarar]

and what exactly is the problem with methane from cow burps?

Cow burps don't add to global warming - as is succinctly pointed out, and as I spend quite a lot of time pointing out in other arenas myself.
Burning diesel does...end of.

And if you think you'll sell the twaddle about how making fert is a good thing.... i cannot help you.

not good but as he said there is more produced than just the fert and we found out a few weeks ago how important it is

 

[egbert]

It's not a brilliantly succinct piece.
It's full of contradiction, poor science, and lies about our industry.

It's not slagging off the NFU.
It's trying to get the NFU to do their job - promoting UK ag, and promoting all farmers equally - better. All criticism is constructive.
Or should I just do what the vast majority of members do; head down, mouth shut, use the member discounts ?

You should do as you like @delilah , but on your way, perhaps you ought call into specsavers, and read that piece again.

 

[egbert]

not good but as he said there is more produced than just the fert and we found out a few weeks ago how important it is

As far as I'm aware, the CO2 is a profitable by-product of fert production.
It can certainly be got elsewhere.

Us pretending that using natural gas to make the grass grow stands up as an argument is futile.
I suppose I'd be no good as an industry lobbyist...

 

[Muck Spreader]

Yes it does and it doesn't get the grief that ruminants do, but that's to do with the propaganda machine. Rice methane is cyclical just like ruminant methane so we're in the same boat basically. Neither is creating additional warming if they stay the same. You can even stretch that to include landfill if you follow the logic but I wouldn't want to defend that one myself, just saying.....

And I'm not sure if rice is remaining static so there's that qualification.

As far as I understand, there has been slow steady increase in Methane levels over the last 200 years which appeared to level off from around 1999 to 2006, then suddenly exponentially and dramatically increased. And as yet the scientists don't fully understand or necessarily agree as to what is causing this.

Most likely, it is changes already occurring in the climate, affecting Tropical wetlands and Permafrost into giving off large amounts of Methane, which unfortunately their is very little we can do anything about. So, the the burden of Methane reduction will fall on other key emitters agriculture, fracking and natural gas production. And it doesn't take a genius to workout who the fossil fuel industry is going to point the finger at into taking the biggest hit!

 

[Cowabunga]

and what exactly is the problem with methane from cow burps?

Cow burps don't add to global warming - as is succinctly pointed out, and as I spend quite a lot of time pointing out in other arenas myself.
Burning diesel does...end of.

And if you think you'll sell the twaddle about how making fert is a good thing.... i cannot help you.

I think that confirms my point 100%.

 

[egbert]

I think that makes my point for me.

Come on...explain to us why methane from cow burps is a problem? (leading to some kind of hocus focus trying to reduce it)

 

[Cowabunga]

Come on...explain to us why methane from cow burps is a problem? (leading to some kind of hocus focus trying to reduce it)

Read what I said again and again until you understand it.

 

[Henarar]

As far as I'm aware, the CO2 is a profitable by-product of fert production.
It can certainly be got elsewhere.

Us pretending that using natural gas to make the grass grow stands up as an argument is futile.
I suppose I'd be no good as an industry lobbyist...

Got elsewhere ? Where and at what carbon cost ? Or can you just go out with a shovel and wheelbarrow

 

[delilah]

I suppose I'd be no good as an industry lobbyist...

This.

 

[delilah]

where did he mention 1% or 10% ?

The 1% is my guesstimate as to farmers proportion of the electorate. The 10% is the NFU's figure for our contribution to UK GHG emissions. Joe said in the article 5% from cattle and sheep, same as the NFU do, they say a further 5% from the rest of ag. It's bollox.

 

[Henarar]

The 1% is my guesstimate as to farmers proportion of the electorate. The 10% is the NFU's figure for our contribution to UK GHG emissions. Joe said in the article 5% from cattle and sheep, same as the NFU do, they say a further 5% from the rest of ag. It's bollox.

Well why don't you say what he said not just make stuff up ?
why is it bollox ?

 

[delilah]

Well why don't you say what he said not just make stuff up ?
why is it bollox ?

I didn't make anything up. If I quoted the 5% I would have only been referring to cattle and sheep.
Most of the farming population have a finger in both livestock and arable, so in referring to the 1% of the electorate it was necessary for me to refer to all of ag, which the NFU say is 10%.

It is bollox because UK ag does not produce 10% of UK GHG emissions. If we exported all food production abroad tomorrow, would UK GHG emissions fall by 10% ? No, they wouldn't.

 

[delilah]

You should do as you like @delilah , but on your way, perhaps you ought call into specsavers, and read that piece again.

Read it again. Still contradictory lies about our industry. To give one example:

Farmers understand that sustainably produced livestock

This is where the NFU get themselves in a pickle. What are 'sustainably produced livestock' ? When it comes to cows it would appear to be stood about in fields, as opposed to 'USA style feedlots' which the NFU love to refer to. When it comes to pigs and poultry, the NFU say that indoor intensive systems are sustainable. Stuart Roberts did so last week on the radio. So, cows indoors is bad, pigs and chickens indoors is good. It's a buggers muddle.

 

[Hampton]

Joe is being groomed as an NFU president. Presentable and well spoken. Sticks to party line at all times, as wants the jobs that come with it. An agricultural politician. Personally I like him, but not sure we ever hear what he really thinks.

The one thing you have to say about Joe is that he’s very intelligent and writes very eloquently.
In fairness he is wasted in the FW as his column would easily pass for the quality of some very erudite journalists in the broadsheets.
The other thing I would say about the NFU presidency is that Minette (like or loathe) has raised the profile in the media almost entirely because she is female. She is the public face of farming and I fear if another middle aged white male is selected (no matter how impressive) then farming will disappear into the doldrums again.

 

[Will Blackburn]

The one thing you have to say about Joe is that he’s very intelligent and writes very eloquently.
In fairness he is wasted in the FW as his column would easily pass for the quality of some very erudite journalists in the broadsheets.
The other thing I would say about the NFU presidency is that Minette (like or loathe) has raised the profile in the media almost entirely because she is female. She is the public face of farming and I fear if another middle aged white male is selected (no matter how impressive) then farming will disappear into the doldrums again.

Great point, NFU top table are only ever there to deliver the official lines, we need to replace the back office.

 

[An Gof]

Great point, NFU top table are only ever there to deliver the official lines, we need to replace the back office.

In some ways that is uncomfortably close to the

Some excellent people lurk in the back office but I can think of some to show the