nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Reduction in Greenhouse Gases

alps

https://www.facebook.com/124025717676271/posts/2093886924023464/

If this is a mandatory reduction and if enforced, it won't take rocket science to conclude that a reduction in stock numbers is going to be part of that equation...

If this is something we now know( but maybe not admit to) why do we continue to allow an increase in stock numbers? Is it for farmers benefit, for processors benefit, for the country's benefit?

Who will loose out in the end? Some farmers, all farmers?

If a reduction in numbers was to become mandatory, would it be applied evenly across the board? Would it apply to only to those who increase in numbers?

Gonna be really unfair to farmers who did not increase....it happened in Holland....thats why there was such a rush to increase numbers for a 4 year period before the cull was implemented...

Many want this conversation stifled as the clamour to increase numbers continues....should everyone lash on for this reason?

As processors continue with incredible pace with further construction, is it that there has been a decision with the powers that be that sucklers are going to be thrown to the wolves to allow for this manic expansion of the dairy herd?

Something is not adding up....

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Buford T. Justice XIX

No amount of reduction of animals is going to compensate for the amount of carbon being released from burning coal, gas and fuels in the world.

The only place all the extra carbon is coming from is from stored fuels unless cattle have learned to spontaneously create carbon in their rumens, which they cannot.

But people are happily looking elsewhere for someone to blame rather than their own energy intensive lifestyles.

Say my name

If there's going to be serious discussion on reducing emissions in agriculture (without reducing numbers).

Then the various winter slurry treatments will have to be implemented.
This includes slurry bugs, powder treatments. Some massive reductions claimed and witnessed in ammonia and hydrogen sulphide emissions and thus more savings on imported carbon burning fertilizers. But currently not being implemented or discussed on farms.
Also adoption of Biochar for inclusion in animal feed. Again massive reductions claimed in methane production and ammonia emissions. So again less reliance on bought in carbon burning fertilizers. Even if it's not fed but it has to be part of a plan, it can be mixed into the slurry stores with the benefits of reductions in ammonia emissions from the store.

There's two or three possible answers but with the claims they offer could contribute up to a 50% reduction in emissions from livestock production possibly more when the reduction in bought in fertilizer and transport is taken into account.

gozunda

A couple of issues with that.

Carbon is based on what is produced here and not where something is consumed. So there is a case in point where other countries can import what they like and not shoulder the burden of production. Ireland produces dairy products and beef exported to much of Europe and we get to carry the can. Ditto arable production in other countries.

Secondly there has been some very valid criticisms as to how carbon emissions are being calculated. Ours is a predominantly grassland based system that is able to act as a sink for much of the carbon released. Is that included in the calculations - no it's not.

Finally worldwide the single biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is fossil fuel use and transport. Where are calls to get rid and reduce the number of vehicles on the roads or to curtail unnecessary travel by airplane etc? What about the continued increases in fossil fuel usage despite all the talk we have of closing down peat and coal power stations?

You're right something doesn't add up.

_Brian

Popular politics, that’s what doesn’t add up.

A government targeting air transport affecting city folks holidays would be a terribly unpopular government and they don’t like making themselves unpopular, that doesn’t get you re-elected.

Agriculture has had an awful lot of mud sling and quite a bit has stuck. With a population more removed from agriculture than ever before it makes agriculture an easy target. It would be much more palatable for the population to sanction farming rather than their holidays and €10 trips to Brussels or Amsterdam

We will need some serious representation to even the scales.

yosemitesam1

Is that for kyota or one of those agreements?

Nitrogen is responsible for circa 30% of GHG emissions, if we said goodbye to it we'd be reversing the loss of soil carbon as well as increasing soil quality....

TooOldBoots

Might be no harm if a Scheme was introduced to reduce the number of Suckler cows 3 stars and under. Maybe compensate the farmer for doing so. At the end of the day less stock would mean less emissions, and better prices for the remaining stock

sameoldname

The problem for agriculture isn't carbon, it's methane.

Methane is at least 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and estimates put the agri business responsible for 40-50% of all man-made methane emissions.

Since 1750 methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 150%.

gozunda

sameoldname wrote: »

The problem for agriculture isn't carbon, it's methane.

Methane is at least 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and estimates put the agri business responsible for 40-50% of all man-made methane emissions.

Since 1750 methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 150%.

A recent NASA study, has confirmed that known Methane spike tied to Oil and Gas.

https://www.ecowatch.com/nasa-study-methane-spike-2526089909.html?fbclid=IwAR1U87gLM7Mz9MyrYPPoBEfixyCldqpLIDUR0H0ijJFSgRl4lRqoUEw0uxE

Interesting that rice farming has now been also identified as a major emitter of methane

Using this data, "the team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year," NASA said in a Jan. 2 press release. "The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year—the same as the observed increase."

emaherx

sameoldname wrote: »

The problem for agriculture isn't carbon, it's methane.

Methane is at least 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and estimates put the agri business responsible for 40-50% of all man-made methane emissions.

Since 1750 methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 150%.

So the problem is carbon since methane is CH4. Methane dosen't remain Methane in the atmosphere very long and It is part of the natural carbon cycle. A cow produces Methane from carbon which was captured from the atmosphere by the grass it eats. (Not really adding any new carbon)

Unlike CO2 and CH4 from fossil fuels which was previously stored in the ground in the form of oil/gas for many millions of years. (All carbon from fossil fuels is new to the atmosphere)

Also NOX gases from fossil fuel burning vehicles when they reach the atmosphere slow down the natural breakdown of CH4, but sure let's blame the cows!

jhenno78

emaherx wrote: »

So the problem is carbon since methane is CH4. Methane dosen't remain Methane in the atmosphere very long and It is part of the natural carbon cycle. A cow produces Methane from carbon which was captured from the atmosphere by the grass it eats. (Not really adding any new carbon)

Ah here, "sure it's all carbon" isn't how it works at all.

It gets released, goes into the atmosphere and reflects back heat. It's when it's up there that the damage is done. Whatever way you look at it, it's getting put up there and doing damage. Even though it gets taken back into the soil eventually it's still doing damage.

Methane spends a lot more time up there, goes through several cycles and does a hell of a lot more damage than CO2.

Is burning fossil fuel bad? Well of course it is, nobody's going to disagree with that. Changes are happening there, doesn't mean we don't need to make changes in other places too.

Say my name

jhenno78 wrote: »

Ah here, "sure it's all carbon" isn't how it works at all.

It gets released, goes into the atmosphere and reflects back heat. It's when it's up there that the damage is done. Whatever way you look at it, it's getting put up there and doing damage. Even though it gets taken back into the soil eventually it's still doing damage.

Methane spends a lot more time up there, goes through several cycles and does a hell of a lot more damage than CO2.

Is burning fossil fuel bad? Well of course it is, nobody's going to disagree with that. Changes are happening there, doesn't mean we don't need to make changes in other places too.

The point being though the amount of ruminants in the world is probably less now than it was in the 1800's.

The changes in the meantime have been an increase in methane from natural gas, fracking, increased rice production, melting permafrost, increased consumerism and increasingly bigger and more landfills from our throw away society.

But you're right all options should be looked at.

sameoldname

emaherx wrote: »

So the problem is carbon since methane is CH4. Methane dosen't remain Methane in the atmosphere very long and It is part of the natural carbon cycle. A cow produces Methane from carbon which was captured from the atmosphere by the grass it eats. (Not really adding any new carbon)

Unlike CO2 and CH4 from fossil fuels which was previously stored in the ground in the form of oil/gas for many millions of years. (All carbon from fossil fuels is new to the atmosphere)

Also NOX gases from fossil fuel burning vehicles when they reach the atmosphere slow down the natural breakdown of CH4, but sure let's blame the cows!

While it may not be long lived at 12 years, it's still up there in ever increasing amounts and there's zero sign of any reduction from either the oil industry or the worlds appetite for meat.

What you said above would all be true if the land animals graze on was always grassland but it's not. Most of the agricultural land used today used to be woodlands/jungles/etc which captures far more CO2 than grass. Indeed one of the major issues with livestock production over crops is it's far more inefficient to feed an animal crops and then eat the animal than it is for us to just eat the crops ourselves. By reducing the intake of meat you can reduce the amount of forests that need to be cleared to make way for agriculture, thus preventing the loss of even more carbon sinks.

Also, it sounds like you're saying that the agriculture industry doesn't burn fossil fuels along the production chain, or indeed rely on fertilisers made largely from natural gas? The industry can't just absolve itself by pointing the fingers at others.
According to the EPA, in 2009 the agriculture industry in this country was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by sector at 29.2%.

I'm not saying I don't want to be able to eat meat in the future, but with India and China becoming richer and more able to afford a meat rich diet, it's going to be forced on us one way or another.

jhenno78

Say my name wrote: »

The point being though the amount of ruminants in the world is probably less now than it was in the 1800's.

Huh? we farm much more intensively than ever. Meat is cheaper than it's ever been, it's something that we eat several times a day, while back then it would have only been very rich people who could do that.

I'd agree with you on the other stuff you mentioned.
In Ireland though, agri is our biggest producer of greenhouse gases. No point sticking our heads in the sand about it (and lets be honest blaming the other guy never helps, they'll just blame you right back and nothing will get done).

Say my name

sameoldname wrote: »

While it may not be long lived at 12 years, it's still up there in ever increasing amounts and there's zero sign of any reduction from either the oil industry or the worlds appetite for meat.

What you said above would all be true if the land animals graze on was always grassland but it's not. Most of the agricultural land used today used to be woodlands/jungles/etc which captures far more CO2 than grass. Indeed one of the major issues with livestock production over crops is it's far more inefficient to feed an animal crops and then eat the animal than it is for us to just eat the crops ourselves. By reducing the intake of meat you can reduce the amount of forests that need to be cleared to make way for agriculture, thus preventing the loss of even more carbon sinks.

You're incorrect on the forests/jungles capturing more carbon than grass.

That statement may be true of a young and growing forest but when that forest matures it won't capture any more co2 it'll be carbon neutral.

Whereas a grassland continues capturing co2 forever. That carbon is converted into the above ground plant and when grazed goes into the growth of the grazier and also the grazing forces the roots to look for the help of bacteria and fungi in the soil in finding nutrients and giving sugars in return and they then convert that to stored carbon in the soil. The more it grows and grazed the more carbon is sequestered into the soil which leaches into the lower soil profiles and into waterways.

A Brazilian rainforest has all its co2 in the mature forest and none in the soil.
So it's not a carbon sink or negative.

emaherx

jhenno78 wrote: »

Ah here, "sure it's all carbon" isn't how it works at all.

It gets released, goes into the atmosphere and reflects back heat. It's when it's up there that the damage is done. Whatever way you look at it, it's getting put up there and doing damage. Even though it gets taken back into the soil eventually it's still doing damage.

Methane spends a lot more time up there, goes through several cycles and does a hell of a lot more damage than CO2.

Is burning fossil fuel bad? Well of course it is, nobody's going to disagree with that. Changes are happening there, doesn't mean we don't need to make changes in other places too.

We need greenhouse gases or we'd freeze to death. Cows form part of the carbon cycle especially here in Ireland where cattle are grass fed. Cows stimulate grass to be always in a state of growth which increases photo synthesis causing the grass to capture more carbon, they also stimulate the soil to capture this fact is left out when cattle emissions are recorded.

How much carbon is removed by fossil fuel use? Fossil fuels can only add carbon which hasn't been in the atmosphere for many millions of years.

Agriculture is not the biggest source of carbon emissions a fact accepted by the original authors of the report that claimed it was.

emaherx

jhenno78 wrote: »

I'd agree with you on the other stuff you mentioned.
In Ireland though, agri is our biggest producer of greenhouse gases. No point sticking our heads in the sand about it (and lets be honest blaming the other guy never helps, they'll just blame you right back and nothing will get done).

Farming gets no credit for carbon sequestered, the other guys are delighted because that figure would reflect badly on them.

_Brian

An honest question on carbon sequestered by grass.

Does it really count though if so quickly we graze it and methane is produced in large quantities in its digestion?

Or is the carbon locked down into the soil through the roots, thus the more we graze the more it grows and the more carbon it locks up, I’ve really no idea how that cycle works

Birdnuts

_Brian wrote: »

An honest question on carbon sequestered by grass.

Does it really count though if so quickly we graze it and methane is produced in large quantities in its digestion?

Or is the carbon locked down into the soil through the roots, thus the more we graze the more it grows and the more carbon it locks up, I’ve really no idea how that cycle works

I suspect intensively managed monoculture grassland stores little Carbon ie. grassland that is subject to frequent reseeding and heavy chemical fert use.

_Brian

Birdnuts wrote: »

I suspect intensively managed monoculture grassland stores little Carbon ie. grassland that is subject to frequent reseeding and heavy chemical fert use.

I’ve no idea, it seems the only strong case that can be made against saddling agriculture with carbon taxes so I’d like to know the basics at least.

yosemitesam1

sameoldname wrote: »

While it may not be long lived at 12 years, it's still up there in ever increasing amounts and there's zero sign of any reduction from either the oil industry or the worlds appetite for meat.

What you said above would all be true if the land animals graze on was always grassland but it's not. Most of the agricultural land used today used to be woodlands/jungles/etc which captures far more CO2 than grass. Indeed one of the major issues with livestock production over crops is it's far more inefficient to feed an animal crops and then eat the animal than it is for us to just eat the crops ourselves. By reducing the intake of meat you can reduce the amount of forests that need to be cleared to make way for agriculture, thus preventing the loss of even more carbon sinks.

Also, it sounds like you're saying that the agriculture industry doesn't burn fossil fuels along the production chain, or indeed rely on fertilisers made largely from natural gas? The industry can't just absolve itself by pointing the fingers at others.
According to the EPA, in 2009 the agriculture industry in this country was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by sector at 29.2%.

I'm not saying I don't want to be able to eat meat in the future, but with India and China becoming richer and more able to afford a meat rich diet, it's going to be forced on us one way or another.

Most of the worlds agricultural land was grassland originally, prairies in north America, pampas, campos, carrado and Patagonia in south America, steppes through from eastern Europe to Mongolia/China as well as much of Africa.
All of these have seen mismanagement on a massive scale releasing hundreds (if not thousands) of billions of tonnes of carbon from soil.

The issue of methane is much more complex, the IPCC recognized global warming potential rates the impact of methane much worse than its global temperature change potential (gtp). Its 28 times co2 versus somewhere under 4 times co2.
Since its global temperatures that must be limited in the long term, the lower value should be used. But it's not.

Reducing nitrous oxide emissions would be the easiest of all but that doesn't seem to get the same support as cutting meat production.
We need livestock to reduce dependence on artificial fertilizer but it doesn't really meet the needs of big business like making livestock out to be the villain does.

Buford T. Justice XIX

_Brian wrote: »

An honest question on carbon sequestered by grass.

Does it really count though if so quickly we graze it and methane is produced in large quantities in its digestion?

Or is the carbon locked down into the soil through the roots, thus the more we graze the more it grows and the more carbon it locks up, I’ve really no idea how that cycle works

Grass stores the carbon in the humus in the soil from cow dung and grasses dying and the organic matter being utilised by microbiota in the soil like earthworms, bacteria and fungi.
It's easily seen in peoples lawns. When the grass is reseeded firstly, the soil and grass is below the level of the surrounding concrete. Look at your lawn now and you'll see the build up of the carbon storing organic matter in the raised level of the lawn since you've first planted it. It's extremely obvious in towns and cities with older parks and lawns.

gozunda

sameoldname wrote: »

While it may not be long lived at 12 years, it's still up there in ever increasing amounts and there's zero sign of any reduction from either the oil industry or the worlds appetite for meat.
What you said above would all be true if the land animals graze on was always grassland but it's not. Most of the agricultural land used today used to be woodlands/jungles/etc which captures far more CO2 than grass. Indeed one of the major issues with livestock production over crops is it's far more inefficient to feed an animal crops and then eat the animal than it is for us to just eat the crops ourselves. By reducing the intake of meat you can reduce the amount of forests that need to be cleared to make way for agriculture, thus preventing the loss of even more carbon sinks.

Also, it sounds like you're saying that the agriculture industry doesn't burn fossil fuels along the production chain, or indeed rely on fertilisers made largely from natural gas? The industry can't just absolve itself by pointing the fingers at others.
According to the EPA, in 2009 the agriculture industry in this country was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by sector at 29.2%.
I'm not saying I don't want to be able to eat meat in the future, but with India and China becoming richer and more able to afford a meat rich diet, it's going to be forced on us one way or another.

There is a lot of misinformation out there. Not least as to what livestock are fed. I've posted this elsewhere but it's relevant here.

Globally a lot of what is fed to animals as animal feed is the waste and by-products of the human food industry. Then there is the forage from grassland systems where bugger all will grow due to climatic and topographical conditions - this includes much of Ireland. Then there are the crops which do not meet human grade standards which also make up much of what is fed in winter - this is common in Irish agriculture and is referred to as wholecrop which are ensiled for winter feeding. So no not all feed is imported by any stretch of the imagination.

Forage is the single biggest feedstuff for livestock such as cattle in Ireland. And it is for this reason Ireland produces some of the most efficient livestock and dairy produce in Europe. Hence we are able to produce enough to export.

In the US feedlot systems are much more prevalent and there the most common feedstuffs are alfalfa (a type of grass) and soya meal feedstuffs etc. Soya meal which of interest comes from the process of the extraction of soya oil for human consumption from the soybean. The US is also largely self sufficient in producing its own soybeans and does not need to rely on soybeans grown in ecologically sensitive areas such as South America etc.

Buy locally sourced foods I'd you wish to reduce your ecological footprint. Dont take unnecessary trips by airplane as a single transatlantic trip will massively negate any reductions in buying imported foods. And most importantly reduce your use of fossil fuel and transport which is the single biggest contributor to ghg's worldwide.

yosemitesam1

_Brian wrote: »

An honest question on carbon sequestered by grass.

Does it really count though if so quickly we graze it and methane is produced in large quantities in its digestion?

Or is the carbon locked down into the soil through the roots, thus the more we graze the more it grows and the more carbon it locks up, I’ve really no idea how that cycle works

The growth on top of the ground has little to do with carbon sequestration. It's maintaining a large amount of carbon in the soil that is important. Every tonne of dry matter would be about 50% carbon.

Roots make a contribution to soil carbon, both the living and decaying. The vast majority comes from sugars and proteins in the soil, they become stabilized when they stick to soil particles and form aggregates. The important size for stable carbon is below 250um in size as this makes it much harder to be accessed by microbes.
This is driven mainly by microbial activity as bacteria but more importantly fungi can operate over a much greater surface area than roots.
The more activity and growth of microbes in the soil, the more aggregation and soil carbon trapped in a stable form to a point. Also along the way more carbon would be held in less stable form and add to total soil carbon.

How to maximize it

The plant (grass/clover etc) has to have a reason to grow a big root system and interact with the soil microbes.
If soil fertility is very high, the plant will grow a shallower less extensive root system and feed the soil microbes less.
Plant diversity is also a big help as it selects for beneficial soil microbes. So instead of wasting resources feeding parasites, instead microbes that will benefit the plant proliferate. More activity growing through the soil interacting with soil particles to benefit the plant through accessing nutrients and also building soil carbon at the same time as a byproduct of this action

In intensive monoculture driven by fertilizer, the above isn't taking place. So soil carbon AND soil quality declines over time. It mightn't be noticeable but it does happen.

patsy_mccabe

Carbon sequestration describes the process of transferring carbon from the atmosphere to the terrestrial biosphere (soil or vegetation). Soils contain vast quantities of plant, animal and microbial residues in varying stages of decomposition and store more carbon globally than the atmospheric and living vegetation pools combined. Temperate grasslands have shown strong potential to store carbon belowground in roots and soil..

From;
https://www.teagasc.ie/environment/climate-change/soil-carbon/

Dakota Dan

sameoldname wrote: »

The problem for agriculture isn't carbon, it's methane.

Methane is at least 6 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and estimates put the agri business responsible for 40-50% of all man-made methane emissions.

Since 1750 methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 150%.

40-50%? Did you get that from a PETA website? The real figure is around 10-14%.

Dakota Dan

jhenno78 wrote: »

Huh? we farm much more intensively than ever. Meat is cheaper than it's ever been, it's something that we eat several times a day, while back then it would have only been very rich people who could do that.

I'd agree with you on the other stuff you mentioned.
In Ireland though, agri is our biggest producer of greenhouse gases. No point sticking our heads in the sand about it (and lets be honest blaming the other guy never helps, they'll just blame you right back and nothing will get done).

Back in the 1800’s there were lots of wild bovines eg buffalo bison roaming the parties that only a very small % were used for food.

sameoldname

Dakota Dan wrote: »

40-50%? Did you get that from a PETA website? The real figure is around 10-14%.

The UN in 2006 said that livestock alone account for 37% of man-made methane emissions. That's not including other agricultural sources of methane.

Buford T. Justice XIX

sameoldname wrote: »

The UN in 2006 said that livestock alone account for 37% of man-made methane emissions. That's not including other agricultural sources of methane.

Easily and previously debunked.
https://twitter.com/DefendingBeef/status/1087456624854200320
And...
https://twitter.com/MeatInstitute/status/1085960946235908096

sameoldname

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Easily and previously debunked.
https://twitter.com/DefendingBeef/status/1087456624854200320
And...
https://twitter.com/MeatInstitute/status/1085960946235908096

Anything more solid than industry sponsored tweets?

Buford T. Justice XIX

sameoldname wrote: »

Anything more solid than industry sponsored tweets?

Solid like the EAT-Lancet commentary?:D