Why is the Uk agricultural industry becoming almost “obsessed by carbon free farming”???

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
I am a great believer in Science. Science must always override Political opinion.
I also believe that if you tell someone that White is Black for long enough, they will end up believing it!

I haven't done a CO2 audit on this farm and one of the reasons for doing so is that the the calculation formula is probably flawed against the true reality.

A couple of years ago, I tried to research as best as I could, a part of the calculation that tends to be forgotten, or is it deliberately ignored? Namely the enhanced benefit of the extra CO2 that Nitrate fertilisers capture by enhanced photosynthesis on arable crops and grass, compared to the CO2 that it took to make that Nitrate fertiliser and how much of an increase in CO2 capture did each Kg of Nitrogen used cause.

Having searched Google trying to find any information on it, lead me to studies that have been done on this subject in Denmark and Norway. That information showed:
Where Nitrate fertiliser are correctly used on crops and grass (Just a little below what RB209 would suggest), the extra CO2 is IRO 85Kgs of CO2 / Kg of Nitrate used.
It s also suggested that it takes 2.5Kgs of CO2 to manufacture 1Kg of Nitrate fertiliser.
If this is correct, by dividing the extra CO2 captured by the CO2 cost of making it, we end up with a CO2 benefit of 34.
In other words, the net benefit of using Nitrate fertiliser is 34 times greater than not using it at all!
On this 330ha farm, the crops and grass that we fertilise, being 39 tonnes of Double-top and 42 tonnes of Urea annually, capture 4,960 EXTRA/MORE tonnes of CO2, than if we hadn't used any at all!

I can't guarantee that this information is correct as it was difficult to find. It is almost as if somebody doesn't want us to find it! Why? - Because it is good news?

BUT, Irrespective of all the above, is the very fact that EVERY farmer in the UK captures via photosynthesis, CO2 on any crop OR grass that is green during daylight hours, as long as the temperature is above 4 degrees C,

How can trees in the UK be any better, when most of them lose there leaves in winter?

WE FARMERS ARE THE LUNGS OF THE UK!


When it comes to the livestock story, they can only grow on the grass and crops that we have already harvested/grazed, for which WE captured the CO2 in the first place!

WAKE up NFU!
STOP agreeing or admitting there is a problem, then promising to fix it!
The first thing you need to do is CHECK THE SCIENCE and FACTS behind it all and STAND UP FOR US!

Or do you continue to see White as Black?
 
Last edited:

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
I am a great believer in Science. Science must always override Political opinion.
I also believe that if you tell someone that White is Black for long enough, they will end up believing it!

I haven't done a CO2 audit on this farm and one of the reasons for doing so is that the the calculation formula is probably flawed against the true reality.

A couple of years ago, I tried to research as best as I could, a part of the calculation that tends to be forgotten, or is it deliberately ignored? Namely the enhanced benefit of the extra CO2 that Nitrate fertilisers capture by enhanced photosynthesis on arable crops and grass, compared to the CO2 that it took to make that Nitrate fertiliser and how much of an increase in CO2 capture did each Kg of Nitrogen used cause.

Having searched Google trying to find any information on it, lead me to studies that have been done on this subject in Denmark and Norway. That information showed:
Where Nitrate fertiliser are correctly used on crops and grass (Just a little below what RB209 would suggest), the extra CO2 is IRO 85Kgs of CO2 / Kg of Nitrate used.
It s also suggested that it takes 2.5Kgs of CO2 to manufacture 1Kg of Nitrate fertiliser.
If this is correct, by dividing the extra CO2 captured by the CO2 cost of making it, we end up with a CO2 benefit of 34.
In other words, the net benefit of using Nitrate fertiliser is 34 times greater than not using it at all!
On this 330ha farm, the crops and grass that we fertilise, being 39 tonnes of Double-top and 42 tonnes of Urea annually, capture 4,560 EXTRA/MORE tonnes of CO2, than if we hadn't used any at all!

I can't guarantee that this information is correct as it was difficult to find. It is almost as if somebody doesn't want us to find it! Why? - Because it is good news?

BUT, Irrespective of all the above, is the very fact that EVERY farmer in the UK captures via photosynthesis, CO2 on any crop OR grass that is green during daylight hours, as long as the temperature is above 4 degrees C,

How can trees in the UK be any better, when most of them lose there leaves in winter?

WE FARMERS ARE THE LUNGS OF THE UK!


When it comes to the livestock story, they can only grow on the grass and crops that we have already harvested/grazed, for which WE captured the CO2 in the first place!

WAKE up NFU!
STOP agreeing or admitting there is a problem, then promising to fix it!
The first thing you need to do is CHECK THE SCIENCE and FACTS behind it all and STAND UP FOR US!

Or do you continue to see White as Black?
Did you factor this in:


"the researchers discovered that methane emissions from ammonia fertilizer plants were 100 times higher than the fertilizer industry’s self-reported estimate. They also were substantially higher than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate for all industrial processes in the United States.

“We took one small industry that most people have never heard of and found that its methane emissions were three times higher than the EPA assumed was emitted by all industrial production in the United States,”


Sorry!

None of this is easy.
 
Last edited:

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
I am a great believer in Science. Science must always override Political opinion.
I also believe that if you tell someone that White is Black for long enough, they will end up believing it!

I haven't done a CO2 audit on this farm and one of the reasons for doing so is that the the calculation formula is probably flawed against the true reality.

A couple of years ago, I tried to research as best as I could, a part of the calculation that tends to be forgotten, or is it deliberately ignored? Namely the enhanced benefit of the extra CO2 that Nitrate fertilisers capture by enhanced photosynthesis on arable crops and grass, compared to the CO2 that it took to make that Nitrate fertiliser and how much of an increase in CO2 capture did each Kg of Nitrogen used cause.

Having searched Google trying to find any information on it, lead me to studies that have been done on this subject in Denmark and Norway. That information showed:
Where Nitrate fertiliser are correctly used on crops and grass (Just a little below what RB209 would suggest), the extra CO2 is IRO 85Kgs of CO2 / Kg of Nitrate used.
It s also suggested that it takes 2.5Kgs of CO2 to manufacture 1Kg of Nitrate fertiliser.
If this is correct, by dividing the extra CO2 captured by the CO2 cost of making it, we end up with a CO2 benefit of 34.
In other words, the net benefit of using Nitrate fertiliser is 34 times greater than not using it at all!
On this 330ha farm, the crops and grass that we fertilise, being 39 tonnes of Double-top and 42 tonnes of Urea annually, capture 4,560 EXTRA/MORE tonnes of CO2, than if we hadn't used any at all!

I can't guarantee that this information is correct as it was difficult to find. It is almost as if somebody doesn't want us to find it! Why? - Because it is good news?

BUT, Irrespective of all the above, is the very fact that EVERY farmer in the UK captures via photosynthesis, CO2 on any crop OR grass that is green during daylight hours, as long as the temperature is above 4 degrees C,

How can trees in the UK be any better, when most of them lose there leaves in winter?

WE FARMERS ARE THE LUNGS OF THE UK!


When it comes to the livestock story, they can only grow on the grass and crops that we have already harvested/grazed, for which WE captured the CO2 in the first place!

WAKE up NFU!
STOP agreeing or admitting there is a problem, then promising to fix it!
The first thing you need to do is CHECK THE SCIENCE and FACTS behind it all and STAND UP FOR US!

Or do you continue to see White as Black?

Where did you find the article on the net carbon benefit of using fertiliser please?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Soya doesn't need any N fertiliser. So I'm going to say soya is good, and is saving the planet.
There's nothing inherently bad about Soya, it's how it's grown (industrial monocrop, increasingly on recently deforested land, using intense cultivation and herbicide regimes) and used (in ultra- processed foods).

Grown as a component of a diverse multi-crop or cover crop it could indeed be good.
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
I am a great believer in Science. Science must always override Political opinion.
I also believe that if you tell someone that White is Black for long enough, they will end up believing it!

I haven't done a CO2 audit on this farm and one of the reasons for doing so is that the the calculation formula is probably flawed against the true reality.

A couple of years ago, I tried to research as best as I could, a part of the calculation that tends to be forgotten, or is it deliberately ignored? Namely the enhanced benefit of the extra CO2 that Nitrate fertilisers capture by enhanced photosynthesis on arable crops and grass, compared to the CO2 that it took to make that Nitrate fertiliser and how much of an increase in CO2 capture did each Kg of Nitrogen used cause.

Having searched Google trying to find any information on it, lead me to studies that have been done on this subject in Denmark and Norway. That information showed:
Where Nitrate fertiliser are correctly used on crops and grass (Just a little below what RB209 would suggest), the extra CO2 is IRO 85Kgs of CO2 / Kg of Nitrate used.
It s also suggested that it takes 2.5Kgs of CO2 to manufacture 1Kg of Nitrate fertiliser.
If this is correct, by dividing the extra CO2 captured by the CO2 cost of making it, we end up with a CO2 benefit of 34.
In other words, the net benefit of using Nitrate fertiliser is 34 times greater than not using it at all!
On this 330ha farm, the crops and grass that we fertilise, being 39 tonnes of Double-top and 42 tonnes of Urea annually, capture 4,560 EXTRA/MORE tonnes of CO2, than if we hadn't used any at all!

I can't guarantee that this information is correct as it was difficult to find. It is almost as if somebody doesn't want us to find it! Why? - Because it is good news?

BUT, Irrespective of all the above, is the very fact that EVERY farmer in the UK captures via photosynthesis, CO2 on any crop OR grass that is green during daylight hours, as long as the temperature is above 4 degrees C,

How can trees in the UK be any better, when most of them lose there leaves in winter?

WE FARMERS ARE THE LUNGS OF THE UK!


When it comes to the livestock story, they can only grow on the grass and crops that we have already harvested/grazed, for which WE captured the CO2 in the first place!

WAKE up NFU!
STOP agreeing or admitting there is a problem, then promising to fix it!
The first thing you need to do is CHECK THE SCIENCE and FACTS behind it all and STAND UP FOR US!

Or do you continue to see White as Black?


When you drill into detail, you must tell the whole story.

In Denmark, regulation is much tighter on NVZ timings, and ammounts, much tighter than the EU standards, and when you can and can't spread Nitrogen is also regulated by ambient temperature. So, for plant absorption of N to be optimised the temperature must not drop below x for x days.

The other thing is, the Danes take it very seriously and stick to the rules. In addition, they also have strict regulation on slurry storage and application, they have a ' three strikes and you're out rule ' on towers and lagoons using a wet bung to stop N evaporation to the atmosphere. All new tanks have had a roof fitted for years (part of the regulations).

Lots of time, energy and money has also gone into stopping the N pollution of watercourses and run-off. We should stop looking for the negatives on CO2 emissions and N pollution and start to embrace the positives.
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
Did you factor this in:


"the researchers discovered that methane emissions from ammonia fertilizer plants were 100 times higher than the fertilizer industry’s self-reported estimate. They also were substantially higher than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate for all industrial processes in the United States.

“We took one small industry that most people have never heard of and found that its methane emissions were three times higher than the EPA assumed was emitted by all industrial production in the United States,”


Sorry!

None of this is easy.

Hmm. Academics contributing to an article does not mean that the research is valid. I see no reference to peer review in there. The fertiliser producers would not want this being proven at all so I doubt they would co-operate with it.

Edit: I hadn't clicked the link to the journal article. Elementa is not always the most respected source but it does fit the criteria of peer review.
 
Last edited:

Two Tone

Member
Mixed Farmer
Did you factor this in:


"the researchers discovered that methane emissions from ammonia fertilizer plants were 100 times higher than the fertilizer industry’s self-reported estimate. They also were substantially higher than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate for all industrial processes in the United States.

“We took one small industry that most people have never heard of and found that its methane emissions were three times higher than the EPA assumed was emitted by all industrial production in the United States,”


Sorry!

None of this is easy.
NO need to apologise for trying to get to the truth. We need to know ALL the facts!

It was 2 or 3 years ago that I looked into it, which of course pre-dates the Cornel findings.
It is CO2 that I refer to rather than Methane, which obviously has its own story - good and bad.

However, it is the the total CO2 captured side of my post that is more important, irrespective of the Nitrate fertiliser/ CO2 equation, being:-
Farmers producing anything by Photosynthesis (OR feeding livestock on food that is all produced by photosynthesis) ARE THE LUNGS OF THE UK!

We need to be assured that ALL the benefits as well as the disadvantages of the CO2 story are put into the farming equation. Yet I am failing to find where they are.
Where did you find the article on the net carbon benefit of using fertiliser please?
I spent 2 painful days trawling though it all. IIRC, some of it was Yara based (slightly worrying!) and some of it was University based.
I remember that I was absolutely gobsmacked at how much MORE CO2 is captured by a correctly fertilised crop. Which of course it achieves by Nitrates enhancing the plant's ability to photosynthesize.
I was just trying to make the best sense of it that I could.

You will remember that I mentioned it at the time and even wrote about in the Opinions letters section of FW.
Essentially saying that we must have ALL the facts, good as well as bad.

Therein being the problem:-
What exactly are the absolutely (everything taken into consideration) undeniably True Scientific Facts and what are Opinions, designed to enhance a Political point (to score points!)?


I'm extremely worried that the NFU viewpoint falls into the 2nd category.
Based on other's opinions, rather than absolutely (everything taken into consideration) undeniably True Scientific Facts!
 

Stuart J

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
UK
Maybe because they already are and are waiting for the science to catch up.
UK ag 11 -15% of total GHGs. Livestock GHG 8%, sheep and cattle 4, almost all of which are methane calculations. Plants and veg 7%.
We will look back at this period as flawed science.

Oh so because we aren't the biggest contributor, we shouldn't be bothering to reduce our emissions?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Hmm. Academics contributing to an article does not mean that the research is valid. I see no reference to peer review in there. The fertiliser producers would not want this being proven at all so I doubt they would co-operate with it.
Agreed, worries me too.

Having said that there's an increasing trend for "peer reviewed papers" now to actually be "reviewed" by other academics sharing the researchers (sometimes undeclared) biases thus they are really no more than carefully camouflaged promotion material for those funding the "study".

Have you read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" or Staurt Richie's "Science Fictions"?

Modern "science" is in a dangerous place with far too much "bought influence".
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
NO need to apologise for trying to get to the truth. We need to know ALL the facts!

It was 2 or 3 years ago that I looked into it, which of course pre-dates the Cornel findings.
It is CO2 that I refer to rather than Methane, which obviously has its own story - good and bad.

However, it is the the total CO2 captured side of my post that is more important, irrespective of the Nitrate fertiliser/ CO2 equation, being:-
Farmers producing anything by Photosynthesis (OR feeding livestock on food that is all produced by photosynthesis) ARE THE LUNGS OF THE UK!

We need to be assured that ALL the benefits as well as the disadvantages of the CO2 story are put into the farming equation. Yet I am failing to find where they are.

I spent 2 painful days trawling though it all. IIRC, some of it was Yara based (slightly worrying!) and some of it was University based.
I remember that I was absolutely gobsmacked at how much MORE CO2 is captured by a correctly fertilised crop. Which of course it achieves by Nitrates enhancing the plant's ability to photosynthesize.
I was just trying to make the best sense of it that I could.

You will remember that I mentioned it at the time and even wrote about in the Opinions letters section of FW.
Essentially saying that we must have ALL the facts, good as well as bad.

Therein being the problem:-
What exactly are the absolutely (everything taken into consideration) undeniably True Scientific Facts and what are Opinions, designed to enhance a Political point (to score points!)?


I'm extremely worried that the NFU viewpoint falls into the 2nd category.
Based on other's opinions, rather than absolutely (everything taken into consideration) undeniably True Scientific Facts!
I've mentioned several times on here about how farming is one of the very few industries that actually ABSORB carbon. All we ever hear about is the emissions side of the story.
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Agreed, worries me too.

Having said that there's an increasing trend for "peer reviewed papers" now to actually be "reviewed" by other academics sharing the researchers (sometimes undeclared) biases thus they are really no more than carefully camouflaged promotion material for those funding the "study".

Have you read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" or Staurt Richie's "Science Fictions"?

Modern "science" is in a dangerous place with far too much "bought influence".


The Monsanto's of this World have done it for years. After challenges, they then started to use peer reviewed material, when if you dig deep enough (and you have to dig very deep, even to the individuals who carried out the research). You usually find they(Monsanto) were the funders of that research. or, the senior individual involved is a Director of a Company, that supplies a Company, that supplies Monsanto.
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Somerset
The Monsanto's of this World have done it for years. After challenges, they then started to use peer reviewed material, when if you dig deep enough (and you have to dig very deep, even to the individuals who carried out the research). You usually find they(Monsanto) were the funders of that research. or, the senior individual involved is a Director of a Company, that supplies a Company, that supplies Monsanto.
why don't you just say its all BS and be done with it
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
why don't you just say its all BS and be done with it


Well some is, some isn't. The guy who predicted doom regarding BSE was wrong in his predictions, however hundreds have died of CJD linked to BSE, another was AIDS. still a major problem, that can now be treated, at the time it was the ' gay plague '

On the other side of the coin, the Chinese Doctor who gave grave reports about Covid was promptly closed down.

Big-tech as Trump referred to the large Corporate Whales, can afford to produce so called ' peer reviewed ' material that can hoodwink us all into believing.

Same in the financial markets, the Institute of Micky Mouse or whoever predicts this, that and the other, there is a 50/50 chance of being right :cool:

Contrary to what is stated above, I'm always sceptical of ' scientific proof ' as too often it's proved wrong, especially with historical timings, by the odd million years.

However, I digress, global warming is real, and the only way to slow it, is to come up with a sustainability criteria that includes the number of human beings. We need a formula that includes us in the calculation.

What is sustainable ? how much water is needed or ploughable hectares of land per head of population to produce food, how much energy etc, etc, etc............

If the UK can sustain 68m people, what is the carbon footprint figure per head that is sustainable, for food, water, travel, work, recreation combined etc ?
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,286
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top