someone writing in the Farmers Weekly has FINALLY got it

[Muck Spreader]

Cows and cars should not be conflated in climate change debates

A simplistic ‘all livestock are bad’ narrative is promoted by campaigners, celebrities, philanthropists and policymakers alike. A much more sophisticated debate is needed.

theconversation.com

 

[An Gof]

I don't 'diss' the burning of fossil fuel to feed cows...I burnt a litre this morning feeding round bales to hairy coos.
(Some of the hay had nitrogen, some didn't. I'll soon be cutting single use bale wrap off some)

But pretending there's no difference is hardly reasonable.....and 'D' keeps on claiming there is no difference.

I was only having a bit of fun

Diesel in the scraper, straw chopper and handler here all burnt this morning to tend to cattle which are all housed. Plenty of steel, wood and concrete involved. Intensive silage leys taking three cuts to provide the winter fodder and bought in concentrates fed As the early contract means they are as cheap as feeding my own barley. There is no hope for me
Still struggling to get them out much before 24 months on the forage system but doing my bit with the intensive cereal fed ones that go around 13 months old.
Which is the right system?

 

[egbert]

I was only having a bit of fun

Diesel in the scraper, straw chopper and handler here all burnt this morning to tend to cattle which are all housed. Plenty of steel, wood and concrete involved. Intensive silage leys taking three cuts to provide the winter fodder and bought in concentrates fed As the early contract means they are as cheap as feeding my own barley. There is no hope for me
Still struggling to get them out much before 24 months on the forage system but doing my bit with the intensive cereal fed ones that go around 13 months old.
Which is the right system?

As far as I'm concerned, you and I can respectfully have that conversation...and even then i wouldn't place one above the other.
But I'm not sure it's the business of anyone else.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

We can bring all of the cows indoors, feed them soya meal and milk them 3x a day, and UK GHG emissions will not rise.
We can kick all of the cows out onto a hillside to eat tor grass, fit them with methane masks, shove seaweed down their throats and milk them once a day, and UK GHG emissions will not fall.
We can have more cows, we can have less cows, we can stick to the exact same number of cows we have today, and UK GHG emissions wont change.
Saying anything else is to agree with those who would see us gone.

Surely the point is that the farmer himself is not entirely responsible for the emissions from farming, but so are the consumers who buy his/her products.
If I buy a plane ticket I’m responsible for those emissions.
No demand = no product = no emissions.

 

[thorpe]

i thought rice production gave off high methane emissions anybody have any figures?

 

[Chris F]

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

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.

 

[Timmy k]

No this is a Mis-truth often peddled. You have to remember the bison were part of a huge ecosystem and were constantly on the move grazing the plains. What they have over there now is intensive chemical mono cropping on those plains and cattle being fed that produce in feed lots. It’s a very, very weak argument.

What's a weak argument? That bison produce methane or they were nearly wiped out? I don't think anyone can argue with them facts.

 

[DaveGrohl]

i thought rice production gave off high methane emissions anybody have any figures?

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.

 

[HatsOff]

Your source states methane half life of 9.1 years and 12.4 it's gone. I'm not certain of either of these numbers, but Frank M always uses the 12.4 years (gone) so that's good enough for me. In a static population the 100 year metric doesn't work. It's a construct to "start somewhere", nothing more than that scientifically.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

But the rationale of carbon dioxide equivalent is that one molecule of methane in the atmosphere (even though it lasts 10 years) does the same amount of warming as 20 molecules of carbon dioxide over 100 years. Over 20 years it's something like 50 molecules of carbon dioxide.

100 years is just used to provide a consistent way of comparing molecules with different capacity to capture heat and different half lives.

 

[Paddington]

Saw a throwaway comment in a BBC article about how the "methane production from rice paddies has been reduced in the last few years", but no back up or figures given.

 

[DaveGrohl]

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

I'd no idea who he was, just read the column. He might want to tell the rest of the NFU what he's looked into. Apart from the last bit obvs......

 

[DaveGrohl]

I'm not disagreeing with that.

But the rationale of carbon dioxide equivalent is that one molecule of methane in the atmosphere (even though it lasts 10 years) does the same amount of warming as 20 molecules of carbon dioxide over 100 years. Over 20 years it's something like 50 molecules of carbon dioxide.

100 years is just used to provide a consistent way of comparing molecules with different capacity to capture heat and different half lives.

Yes, I'm aware, I wasn't disagreeing as such, just seeking small clarification. I am now digging into various scientific articles I have saved (not Wikipedia) just to clear the duration point up as I'm not absolutely clear on it myself now it's been mentioned. I had the 12.4 year duration imprinted on my brain from these refs and would like to check.

 

[David.]

I mistakenly thought we were talking about Stephen Carr's incisive commentary, and wondered who Joe was..

 

[delilah]

You're a (disingenuous) muppet yerself.
It's a brilliantly succinct piece - which I wish I could've put together.

Learn that your pet hobby horse of slagging the NFU seems to blinker you from rational analysis.

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 ?

 

[delilah]

Here you go again.
If a cow feeds itself from unimproved pasture, the cycle is neat and short.
If she comes indoors, and we burn diesel to put food in front of her...it isn't.

Happy to have the discussion on the environmental impact of intensive/extensive with anyone. I have cows that never come in, and I have cows that never go out, and I can put a compelling environmental case for both.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about representation of the industry. Which means promoting all producers, whatever their chosen system, equally.

 

[delilah]

Yeah but he should have just gone on and extrapolated it...
1% of the population are maybe responsible for 10% of the emissions , BUT, they are feeding 40% (I think I"m right in saying we are only 40% self sufficient now) of the population which is what, 65 million??), so those emissions are surely attributable to them.

We aren't producing 10% of UK GHG emissions.

 

[Cowabunga]

Here you go again.
If a cow feeds itself from unimproved pasture, the cycle is neat and short.
If she comes indoors, and we burn diesel to put food in front of her...it isn't.

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.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Yes, I'm aware, I wasn't disagreeing as such, just seeking small clarification. I am now digging into various scientific articles I have saved (not Wikipedia) just to clear the duration point up as I'm not absolutely clear on it myself now it's been mentioned. I had the 12.4 year duration imprinted on my brain from these refs and would like to check.

"Perturbation lifetime is 12.4 years."
Myre et al 2013 from the IPCC archive.
Wtf's perturbation lifetime? It seems to be effective lifetime (for the purposes of warming effects).

 

[DaveGrohl]

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.

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

 

[Spud]

There's too many people on the planet. Anything else is just noise until the massive population growth is slowed