Why is the NFU president going along with the idea that cattle are polluting the atmosphere??

[Blaithin]

Playing devils advocate for a minute, the arguments put up against us will be on 2 main fronts.

The first one is totally disingenuous, citing rain forests being felled to produce cattle feed. We know it’s not true, but those who want to believe will not want to hear anything else.

The second is that even accepting that fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming, if mankind want to slow it down while finding alternative energy sources then all emissions need slowing. Ruminants produce methane and are therefore in the firing line. While methane only lasts a short while in the atmosphere, it doesn’t just disappear, the carbon forms carbon dioxide. Funny how rice production never gets a mention.

We need to make it clear that agriculture is the best placed industry to absorb carbon, especially grassland, but we can only do it with the aid of livestock.

Wasn’t rice the scapegoat of the 90s-00s?

I believe they’ve done a lot of work with rice practices to lower their methane. Don’t ask me what for sure though. I think rotations and flooding abilities? Something like that.

 

[Muddyroads]

Wasn’t rice the scapegoat of the 90s-00s?

I believe they’ve done a lot of work with rice practices to lower their methane. Don’t ask me what for sure though. I think rotations and flooding abilities? Something like that.

It’s down to production methods I believe, but that was really just a sideline to my post. It still shows a disparity in the political arguments though. Not all rice is the same, but neither are all ruminant production systems.

 

[DaveGrohl]

That’s… a terrible analogy.

Rooms in homes are not sealed. Seal a room so that the CO2 stays that high and maybe you’d be able to see a difference. Depending on how well it is insulted and how much the windows reflect vs refract as well as what direction the windows point and what time of year it is.

The concentration in a room is highly dependent on the concentration outside and the concentration outside is very diffused throughout the entire atmosphere and it’s different layers.

Even with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rising and causing reflection, it’s also still overpowered by other factors, like seasons and the suns angle to the earth. It can cause warming but that doesn’t mean it causes it to be warm. A degree warmer here in winter is still -19C.

100% CO2 would cause other issues much more serious than the temperature. Like suffocation.

This is a rather odd post. To say you've gone off on a complete tangent is rather understating it.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Wasn’t rice the scapegoat of the 90s-00s?

I believe they’ve done a lot of work with rice practices to lower their methane. Don’t ask me what for sure though. I think rotations and flooding abilities? Something like that.

You may be right, I don't know. This is a huge problem I have. We navel gaze about getting our footprint down on here as if making a reduction of 10 or 20% would get the idiots off our backs. It won't. They think cows are responsible for over 50% of climate change. Even if it was true do you think they'd end their campaign if that was cut to 45% or 40%? They want us wiped from the face of their imaginary Earth and nothing less will do. They're fekking idiots and shouldn't be treated as anything else. I suppose you could make a case for morons but hey ho.

 

[delilah]

And that is where it all goes awry.
The last few posts have been farmers doing what farmers do best; slagging off other farmers systems. That is a discussion for the technical pages. This is a policy thread.

We could bring all of the cows inside, feed them soya and milk them three times a day, and UK GHG emissions would not rise.
We could kick all of the cows outside to live on tor grass and milk them once a day, and UK GHG emissions would not fall.
We could shoot all of the cows tomorrow, and UK GHG emissions would not change.
That has to be the message from the NFU. Partly because it is true (and if anyone wishes to argue otherwise, technical pages) but mainly because it is the job of the NFU to represent all producers. '

 

[MrNoo]

If we are to see a change in NFU policy, then great, but lets be clear: You can't say that cows are good for the soil but bad for the atmosphere. Either cows are part of a sustainable food system or they are not.

Everything on the NFU website that blames cows for GHG emissions, every statement the top table have come out with apologizing for cows, it all needs taking down and retracting. Now.

Good old Non Farming Union!!! At least they are predictable

 

[Clive]

I'm not sure that if I was a person "of influence" in UK Ag that I would read anything on TFF as all I would see is my name being dragged through the shite.

if it is you should probably be asking yourself “why” “am I failing farmers” “what can i do to change” “what do those i’m paid to represent actually want”



ignorance doesn’t make everything ok !

 

[Ffermer Bach]

And that is where it all goes awry.
The last few posts have been farmers doing what farmers do best; slagging off other farmers systems. That is a discussion for the technical pages. This is a policy thread.

We could bring all of the cows inside, feed them soya and milk them three times a day, and UK GHG emissions would not rise.
We could kick all of the cows outside to live on tor grass and milk them once a day, and UK GHG emissions would not fall.
We could shoot all of the cows tomorrow, and UK GHG emissions would not change.
That has to be the message from the NFU. Partly because it is true (and if anyone wishes to argue otherwise, technical pages) but mainly because it is the job of the NFU to represent all producers. '

if we want to reduce our Carbon footprint, we as a country need to stop buying tat, make stuff we do buy last (reduce, reuse, repair), insulate our houses and wear a thicker jumper in the winter.

 

[Muddyroads]

You may be right, I don't know. This is a huge problem I have. We navel gaze about getting our footprint down on here as if making a reduction of 10 or 20% would get the idiots off our backs. It won't. They think cows are responsible for over 50% of climate change. Even if it was true do you think they'd end their campaign if that was cut to 45% or 40%? They want us wiped from the face of their imaginary Earth and nothing less will do. They're fekking idiots and shouldn't be treated as anything else. I suppose you could make a case for morons but hey ho.

Even this shows where numbers go wrong. As I understand it, agriculture is supposedly responsible for 10% of emissions (I’d love to know the sources of these number), of which ruminants are supposedly responsible for half, so the figure for ruminants should be 5%. Again though, with no reference for the data these figures really are meaningless.

 

[Tarw Coch]

if we want to reduce our Carbon footprint, we as a country need to stop buying tat, make stuff we do buy last (reduce, reuse, repair), insulate our houses and wear a thicker jumper in the winter.

Ohh fek off with your common sense.
Much better to send our leaders on a jolly to Rome then all meet again a few days later in Glasgow, that’s how you get things sorted

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Ohh fek off with your common sense.
Much better to send our leaders on a jolly to Rome then all meet again a few days later in Glasgow, that’s how you get things sorted

better reduce our use of concrete and steel too while we are at it

 

[BrianV]

Spent 4 hours on the M5 “car park” on Friday to get from Exeter to Bristol, pretty much stationary all the way chock a block with cars but not a cow in sight, guess who’s getting the most blame for pollution!

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Radio 4, more propaganda again, about being vegi to save the planet!

 

[C.J]

Why is the earth greening ?

One explanation is , that because of the increased availability of CO2 , plants are more efficient, their stomata spend more time closed and therefore they lose less water

 

[redsloe]

Radio 4, more propaganda again, about being vegi to save the planet!

Jeremy Vine's show all week is about climate change etc. Surely someone on here can get in contact with the show and get the message across that it's not all the cows fault!!!!
Just an explanation about the carbon and methane cycle, photosynthesis, soil erosion and anything else that get conviently forgotten about normally.

Can't expect the NFU to do it.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Even this shows where numbers go wrong. As I understand it, agriculture is supposedly responsible for 10% of emissions (I’d love to know the sources of these number), of which ruminants are supposedly responsible for half, so the figure for ruminants should be 5%. Again though, with no reference for the data these figures really are meaningless.

Which numbers do you want ? It was in an excel spreadsheet as part of the UK action plan.

 

[Lazy Sod]

While methane only lasts a short while in the atmosphere, it doesn’t just disappear, the carbon forms carbon dioxide.

That amount of carbon dioxide is equal to the amount taken in by the grass that is eaten by the ruminant animals. That is why ruminants are not a cause of climate change.

 

[Raider112]

Even this shows where numbers go wrong. As I understand it, agriculture is supposedly responsible for 10% of emissions (I’d love to know the sources of these number), of which ruminants are supposedly responsible for half, so the figure for ruminants should be 5%. Again though, with no reference for the data these figures really are meaningless.

Official Government figures.
You know, that same Government that are hell bent on destroying us.

 

[Treg]

And that is where it all goes awry.
The last few posts have been farmers doing what farmers do best; slagging off other farmers systems. That is a discussion for the technical pages. This is a policy thread.

We could bring all of the cows inside, feed them soya and milk them three times a day, and UK GHG emissions would not rise.
We could kick all of the cows outside to live on tor grass and milk them once a day, and UK GHG emissions would not fall.
We could shoot all of the cows tomorrow, and UK GHG emissions would not change.
That has to be the message from the NFU. Partly because it is true (and if anyone wishes to argue otherwise, technical pages) but mainly because it is the job of the NFU to represent all producers. '

The NFU s message should be, umm have you looked at these guys

11 major COP26 talk sponsors produce more greenhouse gas pollution than whole UK

The COP26 summit, being billed as the 'last best hope' to stop environmental damage, begins in Glasgow this week

www.mirror.co.uk

Oh and what a surprise that some sponsor eat lancet.

 

[tepapa]

Radio 4, more propaganda again, about being vegi to save the planet!

But is the planet in danger or are humans in danger.