Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Why is the Uk agricultural industry becoming almost “obsessed by carbon free farming”???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Two Tone" data-source="post: 7441592" data-attributes="member: 44728"><p>NO need to apologise for trying to get to the truth. We need to know ALL the facts!</p><p></p><p>It was 2 or 3 years ago that I looked into it, which of course pre-dates the Cornel findings. </p><p>It is CO2 that I refer to rather than Methane, which obviously has its own story - good and bad.</p><p></p><p>However, it is the the total CO2 captured side of my post that is more important, irrespective of the Nitrate fertiliser/ CO2 equation, being:-</p><p>Farmers producing anything by Photosynthesis (OR feeding livestock on food that is all produced by photosynthesis) ARE THE LUNGS OF THE UK!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>I was just trying to make the best sense of it that I could.</p><p></p><p>You will remember that I mentioned it at the time and even wrote about in the Opinions letters section of FW.</p><p>Essentially saying that we must have ALL the facts, good as well as bad.</p><p></p><p>Therein being the problem:-</p><p>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!)?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm extremely worried that the NFU viewpoint falls into the 2nd category.</p><p>Based on other's opinions, rather than absolutely (everything taken into consideration) undeniably True Scientific Facts!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Two Tone, post: 7441592, member: 44728"] 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! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Why is the Uk agricultural industry becoming almost “obsessed by carbon free farming”???
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top