Twitter advert

Location
Oxfordshire
Anyway, don't farmers grow oats ?
Yes, I do, and I put that in my letter to them. I am not dairy, but a beef and arable farmer. I have no problem with oat milk, just the way it is being put across. Hell, all the best to them for selling oat milk and if it means the price of oats go up that is great, but please sell it with the befits of your product, not by slagging off people who are linked in to growing both oats and milk/meat.
Am I the only person on here who thinks that it is completely the wrong approach to complain to the ASA ? What, precisely, do you expect to achieve ?
Not the wrong approach, but an approach. I am not expecting the ASA to do much, but they may do something. I would appreciate those that represent us to do more though. On the other thread about the AHDB advert, their representative has come on here and said what they are doing with their FB page. I do not feel that them and the NFU are keeping up with the way things work now, and they are the ones that should be hitting on it, not necessarily us. (Although not being an NFU member I can complain too much!) If you know of other channels to go down with it then please be my guest.
On Twitter I tagged in both the AHDB, main and dairy, and the NFU. Not heard a peep from them today about it, even though their Twitter pages have been active today. I think this shows how out of touch they are. I will speak to both of the tomorrow, if i can get through to someone.
 

delilah

Member
You seem to be missing the point that what they are saying is a lie. It's not a different version of the truth, it's a lie and I bet they know it. They've had a lot of complaints about this advert already, mainly from people outraged that it is trivialising alcoholism......
Livestock farmers aren’t falling out with oat growers, I have porridge for breakfast every morning.
The problem is a buisness beyond the farm gate using mistruths to promote their product, I dare say even arable farmers won’t think that’s fair play.
Now who is it on here that keeps saying there’s nothing wrong our side of the farm gate.
You both - and pretty much everyone else on here - thinks that we should complain about these adverts.
Lets take the most high profile example of farmers complaining in recent times. The AHDB complaining about a TV programme saying that "giving up meat is the most beneficial thing you can do to help the environment".
A huge amount of time, money (yours) and effort went in to that complaint. The upshot being that the AHDB heralded a "significant victory" - their words - in that they got the wording changed to "giving up meat is one of the most beneficial things you can do to help the environment".
Whoopee. What does that change in wording achieve ? It is still nonsense, yet it was the most that a complaint was ever going to get. Has that ruling stopped, in any way, the assault on livestock production ? No.
Complaining about how others promote their product is pointless. Promote your product.
 
Their headline statistic is wrong. 24% is the global fig. for all agriculture from the latest IPCC stats. Livestock emissions are within that total, approx half globally. Which makes it less than 'transportation' as a sector.

View attachment 934435



Also note this important sentence from the IPCC report: This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.

I'll put something together for ASA.
Why is other land use put with Agriculture and Forestry, ffs why can't it have it's own slice of the pie???
 

delilah

Member
The most effective land use in removing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is grass.
More effective than crops, more effective than trees. And much, much more effective than factories producing manufactured artificial 'food'.
The only reason that farmers grow grass, is so that it can be eaten by cows and sheep.
No cows and sheep means no grass, which means increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If you are concerned about climate change - and you should be - then eat beef and lamb.


You think the vegan society, or the manufacturers of oat milk, would take you to the ASA for that ? No, because they understand that it would be a waste of their resources to do so. Stop fannying about and start fighting fire with fire.
 

Swarfmonkey

Member
Location
Hampshire
Why is other land use put with Agriculture and Forestry, ffs why can't it have it's own slice of the pie???
Latest work from IPCC does separate it out.

Forestry and other land use - 5.8 +/- 2.6Gt CO2e/Year
Agriculture - 6.2 +/-1.4Gt CO2e/Year.

Total anthropogenic emissions - 52.0 +/- 4.5 Gt CO2e/year

So, at worst agriculture accounts for 16% of total anthropogenic emissions, at best it accounts for 8.5%.

It also illustrates how p!ss poor the IPCC’s estimations are when the best case scenario is almost half that of the worst case scenario.
 

Poorbuthappy

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Latest work from IPCC does separate it out.

Forestry and other land use - 5.8 +/- 2.6Gt CO2e/Year
Agriculture - 6.2 +/-1.4Gt CO2e/Year.

Total anthropogenic emissions - 52.0 +/- 4.5 Gt CO2e/year

So, at worst agriculture accounts for 16% of total anthropogenic emissions, at best it accounts for 8.5%.

It also illustrates how p!ss poor the IPCC’s estimations are when the best case scenario is almost half that of the worst case scenario.
I often think if you added up all the claimed amounts of co2 emmissions from all the various sources when they blame this or that for x amount/ % , the total probably comes to about 300% of actual co2 emmissions. 🙄

X amount given off for every Google search for eg. Multiply that up for the total number of searches, and is that actually an accurate representation of what's going on?
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
I often think if you added up all the claimed amounts of co2 emmissions from all the various sources when they blame this or that for x amount/ % , the total probably comes to about 300% of actual co2 emmissions. 🙄

X amount given off for every Google search for eg. Multiply that up for the total number of searches, and is that actually an accurate representation of what's going on?
Absolutely correct. And this is the problem with this area of "science". It isn't remotely scientific. When you have a body such as the IPCC taking info from the likes of Poore & Nemecek you know that they're just plucking figures from whatever source they can. It looks like they've done a lot of work so we'll accept it as correct. There's no checking going on in this. Add in things like the EAT-Lancet report and it's no wonder people are confused. And again, in all of this it's emissions emissions emissions, never any mention of absorption.
 

puppet

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
sw scotland
Latest work from IPCC does separate it out.

Forestry and other land use - 5.8 +/- 2.6Gt CO2e/Year
Agriculture - 6.2 +/-1.4Gt CO2e/Year.

Total anthropogenic emissions - 52.0 +/- 4.5 Gt CO2e/year

So, at worst agriculture accounts for 16% of total anthropogenic emissions, at best it accounts for 8.5%.

It also illustrates how p!ss poor the IPCC’s estimations are when the best case scenario is almost half that of the worst case scenario.
I think the IPCC originally said that agriculture/forestry contributed 23% of GHG and mitigated against 24% of all other emissions. It was around page 86 of the report but most media only reported on the emissions.
Some of the predictions were very wide
When you have figures +/- 50% can we rely on the science?
 

Swarfmonkey

Member
Location
Hampshire
Yeah, that rings a bell. At the time it came out the idiot Moonboot jumped on the figure for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses and lied through his teeth saying that it was solely down to agriculture.

As to the IPCC itself, what's the old saying? Oh yeah: "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Take the "Summary for Policy Makers" from the most recent work for example. It confidently states in one section that "If emissions associated with pre- and post-production activities in the global food system are included, the emissions are estimated to be 21-37% of total net anthropogenic GHG emissions". It then goes on to completely contradict that statement. Even in a worst-case scenario (combining agriculture, all of it, and "Non-AFOLU other sectors pre to post production" - which would cover emissions associated with storage/transport/processing/gas for cooking etc etc) I can't get it to add up to more than 26%, which is obviously nowhere near 37%. Whereas under a best-case scenario it comes in at 12.8%.
 

puppet

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
sw scotland
Here is the answer. Worth a look for 20 minutes to see grazing will save the planet and reverse the deserts. He talks about culling 40,000 elephants in Africa - his biggest mistake -and the deserts got worse so they introduced mob grazing as had happened in the wild for thousands of years and it greened up again. In summary, as your great-grandfather said " if you want to grow grass then eat it"

 

Raider112

Member
So if we are putting our case across what figures do we use? in the UK agriculture is 10% with livestock half, so around 5% . What is the worldwide figure?
Transport is around 24 to 26% in the UK from memory? anybody have it for worldwide?
Lots of if's and but's so far.
 
Latest work from IPCC does separate it out.

Forestry and other land use - 5.8 +/- 2.6Gt CO2e/Year
Agriculture - 6.2 +/-1.4Gt CO2e/Year.

Total anthropogenic emissions - 52.0 +/- 4.5 Gt CO2e/year

So, at worst agriculture accounts for 16% of total anthropogenic emissions, at best it accounts for 8.5%.

It also illustrates how p!ss poor the IPCC’s estimations are when the best case scenario is almost half that of the worst case scenario.
+/-100%, ffs you couldn't make this shite up.🙄
 

melted welly

Member
Location
DD9.
The most effective land use in removing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is grass.
More effective than crops, more effective than trees. And much, much more effective than factories producing manufactured artificial 'food'.
The only reason that farmers grow grass, is so that it can be eaten by cows and sheep.
No cows and sheep means no grass, which means increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If you are concerned about climate change - and you should be - then eat beef and lamb.


You think the vegan society, or the manufacturers of oat milk, would take you to the ASA for that ? No, because they understand that it would be a waste of their resources to do so. Stop fannying about and start fighting fire with fire.
The organisations wouldn’t bother, but plenty of that way inclined individuals would.

Highlighting the lies on their own Twitter account is one way that an individual can have an instant effect. Surely quick, fact based rebuttals of glaring lies must be positive.

Dunno how much of Twitter actually get read by people other than those involved in arguments tho 🤣
 
If you read the report @FonterraFarmer you'll soon question a lot of what they say.
No different to most media, just because it's written and published doesn't mean it's true.
Locally in one of our newspapers there was an article from an environmental organisation with regard to an issue with a reference to a structure not far from the farm, picture was published to highlight the problem, ignoring the fact that the structure had been removed and replaced months before...🙄
 
Location
Oxfordshire
After sending various emails and phone calls over the last 2 days I thought I would share with you where I am with the advert.
Oatly - No response so far. (I am not expecting much from them, but would love the chance for a sensible discussion on the topic!)
NFU and Red Tractor seem to be as much use as a chocolate tea pot. NFU have made a couple of comments on their social media and that seems to be it. I have had no response from Red Tractor, yet! I did suggest that they ought to open up dialogue with Oatly to try and get a market open for British Oats, but hat maybe too much like hard work! I am a Red Tractor member and thought this is a golden opportunity to push their 'premium product'!
AHDB - have had a good chat with them, and they have made complaints through the usual channels. I do not know how far they are going to take it though. They had a complaint about the BBCs food programme a couple of weeks a go upheld. I have no idea what this means though. I have seen no retraction or apology from the BBC.
FW and Farmers Guardian have/are doing articles on it, but that is not really helping much.
As a non member, i said to the NFU its a good chance to show me why I should be a member, but on the evidence so far they should not get too excited.
I am sure lots have individuals have made a complaint against it, but this must be a time for the boards above the farmers to step up. They have the money, time and expertise.

So it seems that you can put an advert out and get away with saying just about anything.
 

delilah

Member
So it seems that you can put an advert out and get away with saying just about anything.
Yup. Which is why (as I may have said before) it is a waste of time, effort and money complaining.
Instead, put that time, effort and money into adverts that promote our product. Adverts that are hard hitting, or funny, or thought provoking, or ideally all of the above. Not adverts that are apologetic and soporific, which is what we seem to specialize in at present.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

Guide your way through spring agronomy decisions

  • 85
  • 0
The incessant and extreme wet conditions are now presenting huge challenges for every farm’s spring agronomy and cropping decisions.

Plans are being urgently reevaluated and rejigged to set priorities for treatment, with a watchful eye on deadlines for timely spring crop establishment when a window allows. And all against a backdrop of potential damage to soil structure to fields from traveling in waterlogged conditions.

1614597288695.png

Lessons learned from last year have proved invaluable, with the latest Syngenta Spring Guide giving an insight into some of the tips and ideas to help with this season’s decisions...
Top