I went to a talk last night held by the WFU and it was about reducing carbon emissions on farms I was just wondering if there were any farmers that have a scheme in process at the moment? I wrote an article on my blog, feel free to comment www.bribriwilliams.blogspot.com

The Soil Association's ascertion that we could reduce carbon emissions by 3m tonnes if all UK went organic is misguided - http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/11/27/118925/Going-organic-would-capture-more-carbon.htm

Rothamsted has recently done a study on the environmental costs of food production. One of the biggest is the use of the land itself, on the basis that if you extensify production, as the SA advocates, you would have to farm more land to maintain the same level of food production. That would mean further erosion of protected habitats, marginal land, biodiverse rich areas, etc, that makes the environmental saving (let alone the carbon saving) look like peanuts in comparison. What on earth does the SA think the Campaign for the Farmed Environment is all about? Look out for a report in Crops on this issue.

Basically, there are vast opportunities for farmers to lock up more carbon, and be paid to do so. But a well-run conventional unit has just as much potential to do so, if not more, than any organic farm.

Have to agree with that, moving to an Organic mintil is impossible on our soil type. A well run conventional farm has a better chance of meeting any carbon target and leaving land spare for conservation measures. HHS

 I think the media depicts carbon farmprints, as I call them, in a misleading way.

The whole organic issue is interesting. It's often not that simple to go organic and takes about 4 years doesn't it? I think reducing the carbon footprint of farming will have to be tackled with long term schemes so that farms can still generate a sustainable income whilst go through the changes. 

I think it says alot about the mindset of people that they single out the carbon footprint of farming, something absolutely necessary for the survival of mankind.  I never hear about the carbon footprint of NASCAR, tractor pulling, ski holidays, holiday bowl games, ocean cruises, high school athletics(in the states we spend untold $$ hauling high school and jr. hi. kids around from September to May with football, volleyball, basketball, baseball, softball, cross country and track sometimes 100-150 miles one way).  It appears to me the public wants farmers to become carbon neutral while continuing to provide cheap food, and still do all these other things that certainly have a carbon footprint, are alot of fun, but not necessary.  What a splendid set of priorities.

Whenever there is some new  farming scheme in the UK - whether it is identification of animals, farm assurance, certification for crop spraying, reducing carbon footprint or whatever, high standards are either imposed by Government - or suggested by the industry under threat of Government intervention. I have nothing against high standards. However, we jump through hoops but are not protected against those who do not meet such high standards and sell more cheaply. If we have to reduce the carbon footprint of farming, this may have an advantage of cutting out inefficiencies, but I would want the Government to insist that like products which are imported have to bear a certification as to their carbon footprint - which would have to include the carbon "cost" of importation. However - dream on..............

 

 I have politely asked the sheep to curb their flatulence, and to burp down rabbit holes......

crazysheep:

 I have politely asked the sheep to curb their flatulence, and to burp down rabbit holes......

......which you could  then apply a match to and get underground heating........

We live in an age where utter guff is presented to the masses as nailed on fact. The whole global warming (or climate change as it's now conveniently morphed into) and carbon footprinting scenario is just another alleyway we're heading down. Whether it's a deadend or not doesn't really matter. What's important is that it's a cause we can all unite behind. The fact that in another few years it will all have faded behind more important global issues doesn't matter; we live in the now.

Look at all the effort (and OUR money) that's being expended on "reducing" our carbon footprints. What they really mean is trying to slow down the speed of growth of the footprint. Who defines this "carbon footprint" anyway? It's a movable feast. As pointed out here already, organic systems may have a lesser footprint per acre but per unit of food it's much greater. So how do we measure it? If you're sitting round at a dinner party in Chelsea munching tofu (whatever that is!) you'll see it one way. If you're trying to patch a fence in the wind and rain you'll see it another.

Whatever is happening to the world's climate is not going to be dented by a few lightbulbs or mounting a hate campaign against livestock farmers. How exactly are we as humans supposed to digest all this grass that will be growing once we've done away with the livestock? Such simple questions never enter the heads of those with most to say..........

My advice is try not to get too worked up about them attacking livestock production. They're attacking everyone at the moment and more and more people are getting bored with it already. As long as the Chinese keep wanting to buy more and more meat and dairy we've nowt to get too worried about.

The Chinese want to buy renewable energy as well. We will be there next year to have a look at some things. The most profitable place on earth to invest so the experts say, I want to see for myself.HHS

RJD, The grass will no longer grow, it will have been ploughed up - see the thread regarding the Lancet.

Hhs,

     Believe me you will be shocked if you get to China.One side ultra modern with all the wizz Gear from the west and the other half Slumland,conditions you would be prosecuted for keeping Animals in here.However you can see how an economy without the constraints that now affect Western Industry can prosper.

I have been before BB and have seen a lot but much more to do there. Money to make too. They are big admirers of Adam Smith and want to implement his ideas, including his ideas of social and health care.

Ive got a farm a few cows / calves lots of grass trees hedges yes the cows give off gas but where dose this come from?

Ive got a rayburn and burn wood on it this will keep me warm but will give of warming gas where does this come from?

I may get low on logs and put some coal on it this will give of gas where does this come from?

come to think of it I am getting fed up with solid fuel and all the mess i may get a kit and change to oil will this give of gas and from where will it come?

 

Old Mc, I'll have a look at that thead when I've got time.

Does ploughing up of permanent pasture not release greenhouse gases?!?

In any case, I was referring to the huge amount of grassland worldwide that is not ploughable. How else are we to achieve nutrition from this land without the medium of woollybacks and their like?

 

rjd, I am told it does, with a big but attached. The but is that it is supposed to be a fact that nobody knows how much. I bet they do, but it does not suit them to tell us because that would spoil their argument that most of the land has to be ploughed and used for arable or trees, or miscanthus. Of course the people telling us to plough all this land do not know that it is in permanent grass and rough grazing for a very simple reason - it is not suitable for ploughing, and a large proportion of it is physically incapable of being ploughed even if you wanted to and ignored the unsuitability. I am trying my best to educate these people, but I think I am a lone voice. I cannot agree with you that we should ignore them. They will not go away.

I take every opportunity to tell people the world cannot be farmed and the people cannot be fed without livestock, but I convince very few because they have been told by these vegetarian "experts" that it can and they believe the non-farming "expert" who tells them we can grow whatever we want wherever we want without animals, without non-organic fertilisers and without any agricultural chemicals at all.  None of these people ever buy a farm and try their hare-brained schemes for 40 years to actually demonstrate that it is possible.

 Cows are carbon neutral and a natural part of the carbon cycle. The methane that they produce becomes cardon dioxide in the air and is then absorbed by plants again. Additional carbon can only be released into the atmosphere by volcanoes or by burning fossil fuels.

I think that everyone needs to look at the basic facts!