Worlds gone f***ing mad!

MOG

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Llanthony
I have recently started working part-time for a tree planting charity offering grants to farmers to plant trees on unproductive or awkward sites or to plant new hedgerows where appropriate. Many of the farmers who approach us have $$ signs in their eyes at the thought of cashing in the carbon credits from any tree planting they carry out. We always advise against it on the grounds that
a. once sold they are gone and the price is almost guaranteed to go up massively in coming years, so unless you need the money just register them and hang on tight, and
b. I tell them there is a fair chance that somewhere round the corner a carbon tax is coming onto agriculture and and carbon credits you can generate would count towards offsetting it.
 
Last edited:

delilah

Member
Not sure what you're laughing at tbh.
It is NFU policy that our livestock cause 5% of UK GHG emissions.
It is NFU policy that we need to change our cows diets and fit them with methane masks.
It is AHDB policy that we need to replace PP with trees to cut GHG emissions.
Mustn't forget the NBA: policy that there needs to be a £100 tax on OTM cattle to cut methane.
All of the above amounts to a tax on your cows burps. Called for not by your Government, but by your representative bodies.
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
:banghead: Methane is cyclical. Providing the number of cows and sheep numbers remains relatively unchanged they do not contribute to increased atmospheric methane, only replace what was produced by their ancestors!! Increased atmospheric methane is caused by new sources of methane, ie new gas boiler, gas power station, gas exploration, flights, increased population of farting humans (especially if vegan) and landfill. If tax is to slow the increase in atmospheric methane it has to hit these new sources but its so much easier to hit livestock producers. :mad:
 

BrianV

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Dartmoor

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
Not sure what you're laughing at tbh.
It is NFU policy that our livestock cause 5% of UK GHG emissions.
It is NFU policy that we need to change our cows diets and fit them with methane masks.
It is AHDB policy that we need to replace PP with trees to cut GHG emissions.
Mustn't forget the NBA: policy that there needs to be a £100 tax on OTM cattle to cut methane.
All of the above amounts to a tax on your cows burps. Called for not by your Government, but by your representative bodies.
When the concern is about an increase in atmospheric methane the focus should be on where that extra methane comes from not the sources of methane that have remained relatively stable for generations. Livestock may produce 5% of GHG emissions but livestock is probably the only source which that proportion of overall emissions is much lower now than 100 years ago. It is a bad metric and the NFU should withdraw it forthwith!
 

PSQ

Member
Arable Farmer
Think that’s the plan isn’t it?

Hungry folk be more receptive to Quorn, Beyond Meat and insect protein.
Of which the advertising standards agency said today that Tesco has misled the public with claims about their ‘alternative veg protein’ being better for the planet than meat.
This is all over the BBC news, the secret that these ultra processed meals aren’t all they’re cracked up to be is out:

 

melted welly

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
DD9.
Of which the advertising standards agency said today that Tesco has misled the public with claims about their ‘alternative veg protein’ being better for the planet than meat.
This is all over the BBC news, the secret that these ultra processed meals aren’t all they’re cracked up to be is out:

Let’s hope so.
 
:banghead: Methane is cyclical. Providing the number of cows and sheep numbers remains relatively unchanged they do not contribute to increased atmospheric methane, only replace what was produced by their ancestors!! Increased atmospheric methane is caused by new sources of methane, ie new gas boiler, gas power station, gas exploration, flights, increased population of farting humans (especially if vegan) and landfill. If tax is to slow the increase in atmospheric methane it has to hit these new sources but its so much easier to hit livestock producers. :mad:
Well said there are nearly 60% less cattle in my neck of the woods than there were in the sixties when I was a kid. We are not the problem. At any one time currently there are 283,000 aircraft in the sky round the world .Certainly not 60% less aircraft or human beings or cars, than in the sixties. One of the positives from less aircraft in the skies in the last two years was some of the best ice growth in the Arctic early last winter both in extent and thickness this century. No insulating brown layer of engine gases at the edge of earths atmosphere just as happened in the days after 9/11 which was driven home to me when a photo from space highlighted the brown ring of exhausts gases a few days before 9/11 compared with one taken just a few days after showing a clean white ring at the edge. The planet could heal itself very quickly if we stopped polluting it. At best I think we humans have only about 50 years left on this planet before it becomes uninhabitable. My daughter who has a phd in astrophysics from Edinburgh University agrees with me.

Yesterday I watched 6 polar flights heading north leaving their vast contrails in a clear blue sky round about 2.00pm We also have the return of these gigantic cruise liners in the Firth going to Invergordon after an absence of two years. I for one will take nothing to do with carbon reducing nonsense for farmers until all these other sources are subject to the same scrutiny. Doing plenty on farm already with old fashioned 7 course rotation and using lots of red and white clover to elimnate a lot of artificial nitrogen and hence oil use.
 

Grass And Grain

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Yorks
No VAT on food to help its affordability, but a carbon tax instead.

What do they propose doing with all the grass if ruminants don't eat it? Let it rot? Feed it to horses? Burn it? Feed it to an AD plant if the forager can negotiate hills?

And what they going to do with the rapeseed meal, or soyabean meal, or sunflower expeller, or palm kernel, or brewers grains, or maize gluten, or sugar beet pulp, or citrus pulp, or bread waste, or etc. Let it rot? Put it in the AD plant? Spread it on the land? Burn it?

Someone send them back to school to learn the carbon cycle.
 

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