Its very odd that the public and other organisations, the Soil Association aside, have not been asked by the council for their views on their plans to run their own cattle farm on Stoke Park (front page story 'Pull the udder one', Post, March 26). Why the distinct lack of information and wider discussion?There are serious questions as to whether a council should be farming at all, with all the core responsibilities they already have for education, transport, housing and so on.Even more odd to go for beef farming because its hardly a green option and apart from that it could be dogged by all sorts of problems especially in the event of disease outbreak. If the council was to run a farm far better for it to be at arms length, for it to be a mixed one, perhaps with fruit orchards (great for birds and bees), perhaps with areas set aside for schools to conduct environmental education, perhaps with areas set aside for Bristol's people to grow their own food at very low cost....like another city farm. This makes more sense to me than beef farming and the methane emissions that come with it.
The Posts comment on this issue echoes my MP Kerry McCarthy and correctly makes the point that this particular farm would be pretty small and so the impact of this enterprise on its own is not great. However, there is nowhere near enough emphasis on the greenhouse gas methane as one major cause of climate change and the council should be encouraging low meat diets. I'm not a veggie or a vegan but its certainly more environmentally friendly to eat less meat whilst at the same time being cheaper, healthier and more ethical.
Whilst I understand the argument about the council playing farmers, the methane issue puzzles me. Surely, as the cows aren't eating a fossil fuel containing greenhouse gases previously locked away for millions of years, then the methane was "there" in some form or other before they farted it out. Doesn't every mammal fart methane? And doesn't methane, unlike carbon dioxide, decay in the atmosphere in a relatively short time? Isn't the whole issue just a fart in a teacup? Please enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteMammals can produce very small amounts methane but cows belong to a particular sub-group of mammals called ruminants (sheep, goats, deer...also in this group). The front-ends of ruminants produce especially large amounts of methane (estimates I've seen show cow methane production of up to 200 litres each day!).
ReplyDeleteHumans produce very little methane (the gas in flatulence is mostly nitrogen) as they just dont have the digestive system to produce it - many make none at all and those that do wont make even half a litre a day!
Ruminants chew, swallow, 'ferment' and then regurgitate, and rechew partially digested food before again swallowing. As result of all this their bodies can digest and use fibre (thus we can feed them grass and then obtain good amounts of meat, milk etc). In the process of 'fermenting' food/fibre in their fore-stomach, ruminants like cows 'burp' and otherwise give out methane from their mouths. 90-95% comes from the mouth end rather than from the rear end!, so the headlines you often see in newspapers are misleading.
OK. Thanks, Glenn. But I still don't fully understand why methane from cattle is a problem. Whilst modern cattle are essentially mutants evolved by man's selective breeding over millennia and may or may not generate more methane than their wild cousins, why is it a problem? Cattle, or ruminants in some form or another, must have existed for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, and still do on the African continent. Think of the countless millions of wild bison which existed on the plains of North America until the 19th century. As cattle don't run on fossil fuel they must just be recycling what is already existing naturally. As I understand it methane in the atmosphere naturally decays over a few decades, unlike CO2, so a natural balance must exist.
ReplyDeleteI need more enlightening! :-)
At no time has nature ever had a beef and dairy industrial scale mass production line! Meat production makes intensive use of fossil fuels, chemicals, drugs, land, plus money, and the international trade in meat only makes this worse.
ReplyDeleteThere are huge and very rapidly growing numbers of highly selectively bred cows. Most of these are of course grain fed not grass fed and so we are taking up masses of land not only to keep the cows on but to grow their food too.
Dont forget that its often forested areas that are cleared to farm them and/or their feed - a double whammy!
Take all these things together and the natural balance you refer to does not exist.
See here for more:
http://vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com/2009/01/cows-cars-and-climate.html
or click on the label 'meat'.
I can see that you're very single-minded on this Glenn, but it really is a nonsense to talk about "meat production" as if it is one homogeneous thing. It isn't, and you just bring yourself into disrepute by trying to claimn that it is.
ReplyDeleteAgribusiness / agro-industry is the engine of environmental and bio-cultural destruin ction around the world, whether meat, dairy, cereals, vegetables or fruit.
Please don't smear the organic livestock farmer grazing their herd on conservation land, or the pastoral herder in Kenya, or the family with a few pigs in Asia feeding them on scraps, or any of the other people who rely on their animals for a living that is sustainable and healthy.
It's agribusiness that we need to stop.
Anchusa
ReplyDeleteIs this comment about the council running a beef farm or about meat farming in general?
If the comment is about meat production in general: I've made it pretty clear in both several posts and in comments (see above) that its generally industrialised meat production that we need to change not all meat production. This means I generally agree with your comment (except the bit about bringing myself into disrepute, because there is no foundation for this!).
Please remember that I'm a meat eater myself and so would hardly condemn all meat production! You certainly wont find me smearing 'the organic livestock farmer grazing their herd on conservation land, or the pastoral herder in Kenya, or the family with a few pigs in Asia feeding them on scraps, or any of the other people who rely on their animals for a living that is sustainable and healthy.' In fact I hope my blog does quite the opposite and I'm puzzled as to why you feel this comment is justified!! You may be confusing my arguments for a low meat diet, which I favour, with those for a no meat diet, which I dont favour.
If the comment is about the council running a beef farm my position is that the council should focus mostly on its core functions eg transport, education, housing, social services... If it is to get involved in farming I'd prefer that it was at arms length via setting up some sort of social enterprise. I dont think myself that beef farming is the greenest option and I believe the facts back this but its far from my main objection.
I hope this clarifies my position.
"Humans produce very little methane (the gas in flatulence is mostly nitrogen) as they just dont have the digestive system to produce it..."
ReplyDeleteNow Glenn, I'm no scientist, but, I know that nitrogen doesn't burn. I also know, as does anyone whose spent any time in a barrack room, that you can light farts.
Please explain.
Come on Lizard Watcher...methane isn't the only flammable gas! The amount of nitrogen present is high but variable and its not the only gas present, the smell tells you that!! No doubt there is a small amount of some kind of flammable gas(es) there - for a small number of people it may include methane in very small amounts but its much more likely to be something else.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatulence
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1519741
Glenn, my comment arises from the unwarranted emphasis that you choose to place on “meat.” You appear in danger of falling for spin from the vegan police with their classic thin end of the wedge stuff, strategically picking on what they judge to be the most vulnerable targets.
ReplyDeleteFor example, you write:
“there is nowhere near enough emphasis on the greenhouse gas methane as one major cause of climate change and the council should be encouraging low meat diets.”
This statement appears to me as non-sense for a range of reasons, including:
It diverts attention away from the most major changes humans are inflicting,
1) the exponential increase in human population and consequent massive damage to natural habitats from all human activities, which generally displace or kill other species.
2) the unprecedented and feckless burning of aeons of stored fossil fuels in just a few short years. Drastic reductions in fossil fuel use are vital and would improve our lives in so many ways, so why allow ourselves to be diverted from that?
Even if you were to fixate on livestock methane production which, from looking at your link and other information, involves almost entirely bovines only, then you would have to place equal emphasis, and stigma, on dairy production and instead of talking simplistically about “meat” you would have to talk about milk, yoghurt, cheese, butter, cream etc as well as beef. You would be encouraging people to switch from these foods to other “lower methane” foods, including pork, lamb, mutton, goat, chicken, squirrel, kangaroo, ostrich and so on.
Don’t forget also that there is another important gas produced by human industrial processes and cereal and vegetable agriculture. This is nitrous oxide, which I gather has nearly 10 times higher climate change forcing potential than methane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
We surely ought to consider these issues in an objective light and not allow environmental issues to be hijacked by minority interests like the vegan lobby for their own ends.
Anchusa
ReplyDeleteMy emphasis on meat is fully warranted. I am 'considering these issues in an objective light' and am fully aware of the various agendas of campaigning groups (vegans, organic meat farmers etc included). There is evidence to back my stance. You appear to be unaware that according to UN figures the greenhouse gas contribution from animals raised for food, at 18%, is higher than the greenhouse gas contribution from all transport, at 13%! Its thus an issue that should be up there in the list of priorities for action, especially given the multiple benefits of a low meat diet for health, environment, animal welfare...
I've focussed in on beef/cows as they are the most inefficient. Your point about milk/dairy products is unwarranted - you apprear to be unaware that the footprint for milk production is many times lower than that for meat, even though I've included the figures and source when blogging on this issue. We need to limit the impacts of dairy farming but its not anywhere near as high a priority as meat.
If you are going to accuse me of not being objective could you please get your facts straight and get a proper sense of perspective about relative impacts.
There are plenty of posts on this blog emphasising the need for action on human population growth, fossil fuel use and chemicals from industry and farming.... We need action in a range of areas and we should prioritise the biggest impacts for action - and this means tackling meat production as it is currently carried out. The facts clearly back this.
Sorry to have to say this Glenn, but you are coming over here horribly like a politician, very mealy mouthed. First you say this:
ReplyDelete“If the comment is about meat production in general: I've made it pretty clear in both several posts and in comments (see above) that its generally industrialised meat production that we need to change not all meat production. This means I generally agree with your comment … Please remember that I'm a meat eater myself and so would hardly condemn all meat production!”
Then you say this:
“My emphasis on meat is fully warranted.” Thus ignoring what you previously said by talking simplistically again about “meat”.
Then you come out with this simplistic blanket statement:
“according to UN figures the greenhouse gas contribution from animals raised for food, at 18%, is higher than the greenhouse gas contribution from all transport, at 13%”
Firstly where are you getting this from? Please quote the source. Are you aware that the term “greenhouse gas” in this context is meaningless, as greenhouse gases vary enormously in their radiative forcing potential, as pointed out in my last comment. I note also that you have not addressed my point about nitrous oxide.
“the footprint for milk production is many times lower than that for meat” Again Glenn, as with “meat” the “footprint” (overall environmental or just carbon?) depends on the precise form that the milk production takes. Are you aware that agricultural production varies widely across different farming systems and ecosystems? And again also, what is the source you are quoting for this?
By the way, a bit of feedback here. If you want to win people over, you are not going about it very well, as you have got right up my nose on this and I’m far more into green ideas than most people that I come across day to day.
You might find that a lighter, less antagonistic and dogmatic approach to a commenter who has the temerity to ask a few questions would serve you better.
Just a thought.
I'm afraid your comments are very, very pedantic Anchusa - not much more than that in fact. All you are doing is trying to pick up very small variations in language use to suit whatever your agenda is.
ReplyDeleteDespite your pedantism you dont seem to be reading my posts and my comments on this blog very carefully eg you ask me for the source of my so-called 'blanket statement' when in fact I've given the source within that statement as the United Nations (who incidentally have been calling for lowered meat consumption on the same basis that I have! The IPCC itself is concerned about high and rising meat consumption). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7600005.stm
Again you appear to be criticising and lecturing me without being properly informed yourself!!
You ask me for the source of my statement about the footprint of milk when I have already referred to the fact that the source is already given on this blog (!!) - apparently your interest in what I have to say about meat does not extend to clicking on the label 'meat' and reading the small number of posts I've made on the topic so that you fully understand my position and the supporting evidence(lots of facts, with sources, are there). Here is an extract from a previous blog post of mine to save you the burden of clicking your mouse:
'According to the book ‘Sharing Nature’s Interest’ the ecological footprint of meat is 6.9 to 14.6 hectare years per tonne, depending on the type of animal rearing (pasture-fed animals have a lower footprint than grain-fed ones). Comparable figures for other foods are: non-aquaculture fish 4.5 to 6.6; fruit and vegetables 0.3 to 0.6; milk 1.1 to 1.9; grain such as wheat and rice 1.7 to 2.8; and pulses such as beans and peas 3.6 to 2.8. Even allowing for the fact that these are broad estimates the comparison is stark and is rooted in basic science.'
Note that even the lower end of the meat footprint range is higher than all other food types. This is one reason why I'm of the view that only low meat consumption produced in a non-intensive way can be considered sustainable.
Dont these figures state the relative impacts of various food types pretty well?? Arent they backed by the fact that in the UK to provide a diet of 68.7g of protein and 2370 kcal, meat eaters use 0.32 hectares of land per person, a vegetarian 0.14 and a vegan 0.07??
On your 'feedback' what I'll keep in mind is that this is just your opinion Anchusa. If I was coming across as 'horribly like a politician' wouldn't I be sweet talking you?? Frankly I'm just trying to put the truth first.
I think its you who has been antagonistic here - after all in your opening comment you accused me of talking 'nonsense' and of 'smearing'!! Your language in subsequent comments has been pretty inflammatory and you dont back what you say with facts in context! In any case what's wrong with a bit of vigorous debate - you are free to post attempted criticism and I'm free to rebutt it, then people can read the debate and make up their minds.
You've also said that I've not looked at the issue objectively and have been dogmatic - but I've supplied evidence to back my position! My challenge to you is to refute the evidence I've supplied and refute the UN/IPCC view on meat consumption.
I'm just a bit alarmed that you seem to be the worlds leading expert on farting.
ReplyDeleteCharlie
I recall my studies began at a school camp when I was at primary school...and continued much later whilst studying organic chemistry at college/uni...!!
ReplyDelete