Reply With QuoteHear Hear.
Well........the planes ✈️ have stopped, cars 🚗 have stopped, the world 🌍 as a whole has pretty much stopped and the Co2 levels have dropped!
Yet the farmers haven’t stopped. 👏They’re still getting up to milk the cows 🐄 , the lambing 🐑 sheds are in full swing, the cattle 🐄 are still being fed, the crops are being drilled, yet the CO2 has dropped.
Maybe agriculture 🚜 isn’t quite as bad as the media have been making out .... maybe the world 🌍 isn’t going to end because of our livestock 🐮🐷🐥🐑🐄 maybe, just maybe, agriculture 🚜 is actually going to be the thing to save everyone when this world 🌍 needs feeding .....we cannot import avacados, coconut milk and mangetout from South America! ....eat local.eat fresh...🐄🐷🐑
#supportbritishagriculture 👍#keepbritainfarming 🚜🐮🐷
Hear Hear.
Crops are more damaging to the planet, destroy more natural ecosystems, require toxic pest control, strip the soil of all its fertility, destroy natural food chains and combined with global transportation add high levels of CO2 emissions.
Livestock are generally raised on unsuitable agricultural land, add nutrients to the land, bring back high levels of biodiversity to their environment and convert grass not suitable for human consumption into a wonderful source of protein, natural fats and high in essential minerals and vitamins.
Meat - what’s not to love?
Most livestock isn't raised like that and hardly innocent where greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.Originally Posted by Chinnock
Where do you think those nutrients come from BTW?
Same here: a very anti-farmers attitude regarding CO2 levels, until this... Now, we're urged to 'buy local' and especially locally produced products. The satellite images show only mild concentrations of CO2 and then only at places where heavy industry is still producing: steel mills west of Amsterdam, petrochemical industry in the SW and just across the border in Germany.
How things can change in 3 weeks.
If you buy locally and free range then yes it is. Not all meat is equal but then that’s the responsibility of the consumer.
As for animals being responsible for CO2 emissions, that is total bullshit (pardon the pun). When millions of bison roamed the prairies, don’t remember the native Americans complaining about global warming. Nor the millions of wildebeest roaming the African plains. Nature had no issues back then.
Industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit, releasing millions of years of trapped organic materials into the atmosphere in a very short time.
Only one mammal has been responsible for this sadly.
Unfortunately 70 per cent of Amazon rainforest deforestation is specifically carried out to create grazing land, which is a big problem for the CO2 balance (Source: British Geological Survey). We need to live within our means as the worldwide population expands; less use of fossil fuels and far less deforestation.
Are you sure that you're not looking at NO2 density images?
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH
Don’t forget palm oil and soy being the other reasons for more recent deforestation combined with timber / forest products which is huge.
I agree cattle ranching has been the biggest issue in Brazil, but anyone blaming the cows for increased levels of CO2 is misguided.
I hope this crisis changes our spending habits, makes us question where we get our food from and helps us support more sustainable local farming and makes people realise cows are not the problem!
We can certainly blame cows for increased levels of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“Don’t look back, you’re not heading that way.”
when agriculture became mass production on an idustrial scale is where we went wrong - thats what gave us mad cow disease etc....
Agriculture isn't harmful with co2 emissions and too much water consumption if done right... but of course its not profitable if done right
Just buy and eat local as much as you can - the more demand for this - the less demand for the other type and then that becomes less profitable and will wind down slowly
Just not feasible to feed the world with that cycle. Soil will need to be fertilised (using industrially produced ammonia fertilisers) for example. There’s also a massive cost in water use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, methane (before) converted to CO2 will still have major effect on global warming so it can’t be ignored just because it eventually might be recycled.
The problem is the methane, not the CO2, cattle produce a large amount of methane, which is over 30 times more powerful a global warming gas than CO2.
That diagram glibly suggests methane is converted, by what process they do not say. It is not.
The other problem is the beef cycle, where large tracts of forest are cleared to grow soya beans, which are then fed to cows.
So that rather than an acre feeding a family, it feeds a cow, which only feeds 1/4 of a family because the rest of the energy propels the cow around its intensive rearing shed for the year.
This process massively over-utilises land that might otherwise cure the worlds hunger problems.
I don't think anyone with a balanced view has any problem with grass-fed meat reared on suitable land, it is a perfectly good way of producing food.
However, that system is not the way most beef is produced.
Dave
There are a billion domestic cattle in the world.
Posting Permissions
