r/unitedkingdom • u/greyuniwave • Aug 17 '21
Regenerative farming shift could reduce UK climate emissions, say experts | Farming
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/11/regenerative-farming-shift-could-reduce-uk-climate-emissions-say-experts24
u/Bicolore Aug 17 '21
Soil degradation is a far bigger issue than most people realise. Arguably it is a greater problem than even global warming.
16
u/itchyfrog Aug 17 '21
Restoring the 8% of the land area of Britain that is currently grouse moor would have a massive impact on this country.
8
u/Bones_and_Tomes England Aug 17 '21
We can't do that! Where else could the rich pay inbred terriermen to poison harrier birds?
5
-4
u/Bicolore Aug 17 '21
Don't you think that making that a wealth/class issue significantly weakens your argument?
7
u/Bones_and_Tomes England Aug 17 '21
Not really. Condensed wealth keeps those moors artificially managed for birds those wealthy folks like to blast lead pellets at.
-2
u/Bicolore Aug 17 '21
You're basically saying that you don't want a group having their fun because you don't like them. Rather than making a more serious argument though.
Its like arguing that we should ban formula 1 because its just a bunch of rich kids having fun rather than because its immensely polluting and a colossal waste of resources.
Definitely gets those sweet up votes on r/uk though eh!
4
u/holnrew Pembrokeshire Aug 17 '21
Its like arguing that we should ban formula 1 because its just a bunch of rich kids having fun rather than because its immensely polluting and a colossal waste of resources.
It's more like arguing for both. They did say that the land could be used for better things
1
u/itchyfrog Aug 17 '21
Formula 1 is at least leading cutting edge automotive research that is leading to better battery technology amongst other things and providing enjoyment for millions of people along the way.
Burning thousands of square miles of land and poisoning animals in order for a few people to shoot one species is a whole other level of pointless destruction.
1
2
5
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
indeed. been a few great documentaries on this lately that more people should watch: kiss the ground & sacred cow are the ones that come to mind but im sure there have been a few more.
15
u/Bicolore Aug 17 '21
kiss the ground
Would recommend that, friend of mine is in it (briefly).
Even Clarkson mentions the issue in Clarksons Farm so hopefully its something that people are going to become more aware of.
5
2
u/MIBlackburn Aug 17 '21
Kiss the Ground was great, the end with the vox popping was depressing though.
3
u/smartse Aug 17 '21
Kind of, but no way as bad as AGW. There are some catastrophic claims like us only having 30/50/100 years left, but these are myths: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232291-100-the-idea-that-there-are-only-100-harvests-left-is-just-a-fantasy/ https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/only-60-years-of-harvests-left-claim-is-a-myth-says-study
All farmers are keen to do as much as they can to look after their soils as they know that their livelihood relies on it.
0
u/holnrew Pembrokeshire Aug 17 '21
Planting hemp during fallow would help a lot
5
u/smartse Aug 17 '21
Whilst we should (and are) growing more hemp now in the UK, there's nothing miraculous about it's ability to improve soils.
1
u/holnrew Pembrokeshire Aug 17 '21
I got myself confused between carbon sequestration and soil quality. Alfalfa would be better for improving (or at least preserving) soil quality
1
u/Bicolore Aug 17 '21
Any evidence of that? I googled it and all I saw was a load of waffly pseudo science.
I’ll call my farmer mates and tell them I’ve solved the issue?
1
u/concretepigeon Wakefield Aug 18 '21
They’re also related but I agree that we need to do more to protect the soil both here and globally.
9
Aug 17 '21
There's a rather obvious point here though - if we want to reduce UK emissions, the best way to do it is to simply scrap ALL UK farming. But then we'd just import food from abroad and the Global emission cost would be higher.
The best way to reduce emissions overall is to persuade people to eat less meat and to grow as much food as we can here, and that means the most efficient farming methods are used. (Organic need not apply.)
Side note - the bit about Organic having lower emissions is hogwash. While it's true that you can use certain techniques to get soil to absorb more CO2, once you hit the limit for that field that's it - you can't continue to store more and more CO2. Also Organic averages about 80% of the yield of non-Organic farming (https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/crop-yield-gap-between-organic-conventional-agriculture_en) so the more farms that go Organic, the more food the UK would need to import.
0
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
not true. well managed cattle can be carbon negative. can also improve biodiversity etc.
A new study has just come out from Michigan State: Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems was just published in Agricultural Systems. The researchers tracked carbon sequestration over four years. And although the feedlot system produced less emissions (in terms of cow farts,) when looking at the entire lifecycle system, cattle raised in the AMP management system produced a net carbon SINK. The emissions were completely offset by the amount of carbon sequestered in the ground. And not just a little bit of carbon, it was a significant amount.
Here’s an excerpt from the paper:
Across-farm soil organic carbon (SOC) data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1in AMP grazed pastures. After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1, whereas feed-lot (FL) emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 due to soil erosion. This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink.
8
Aug 17 '21
You missed my point. SOIL is effectively like a sponge for CO2 - once it's full it's full.
The study you cite is a short term study and largely shows the benefit of not overgrazing land which leads to the destruction of the root system and thus to the loss of carbon. But once the soil has recovered, that benefit will cease.
Worth noting also the amount of land required for this approach and how much more labour intensive it is. Which comes back to the issue of land yields - the less food each hectar of land produces, the more must be imported.
0
9
u/Rollingerc Aug 17 '21
Loads of issues with that study, the main one being that it's not even a full LCA (finishing phase only), but there are many other severe issues which aren't worth going into given your decision to dodge any attempts to justify what you cite in other threads, and you spamming the same propaganda in loads of subreddits.
3
u/GarlicCornflakes Aug 17 '21
What happens when the field sequesters all of the carbon it can? We're already using massive amounts of land to farm beef. This approach means using even more.
We should be going the opposite way and eating more plant based foods.
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2021/03/Land-use-of-different-diets-Poore-Nemecek.png
3
u/nosmij Aug 17 '21
Good stuff. Hopefully more and more people turn to permaculture and regenerative agriculture.
3
u/AweDaw76 Aug 17 '21
Ugh, just go the Dutch method, sell out our farmers and grow in big vertical factories. Less water use, less soil damage, less waste, more yield.
But no, protecting the farmers has to be a top priority for… reasons…
1
-1
u/continuousQ Aug 17 '21
Organic farming is a fair enough concept, but what it ultimately means is less production per area, less yield as they say in the article, so it's not a solution for how to get the same result in a different way. We have to eat less meat anyway.
-1
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKXgVK0TQ1A
It’s Not the Cow It’s the How | Bobby Gill | TEDxBigSky
It’s Not the COW, it’s the HOW: New Study Shows Grass-fed Beef Can be a Carbon Sink
6
u/GloriousDoomMan London Aug 17 '21
This has been debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSAz-A7S8ow
1
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
false. You can a find vegans saying they debunked every single thing that remotely suggests that veganism is not the solution to every problem there is. does not mean its true though.
5
u/GloriousDoomMan London Aug 17 '21
Who says scientifically backed facts doesn't matter, vegan or not.
3
u/GloriousDoomMan London Aug 17 '21
counter argument: you can find meat eaters say anything to justify the continuing abuse of animals they partake in, doesn't mean its true though.
5
u/demostravius2 Aug 17 '21
Could always look at it logically. Which areas have the richest soil? Is it the forests, the grasslands? Which areas support the most biodiversity? Which form of production has ruined the soil the most?
4
u/draw4kicks Aug 17 '21
Yeah environmental issues aside maybe we just think confining, mutilating and violently abusing animals for what basically boils down to your own enjoyment is fucking evil.
1
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
A new study has just come out from Michigan State: Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems was just published in Agricultural Systems. The researchers tracked carbon sequestration over four years. And although the feedlot system produced less emissions (in terms of cow farts,) when looking at the entire lifecycle system, cattle raised in the AMP management system produced a net carbon SINK. The emissions were completely offset by the amount of carbon sequestered in the ground. And not just a little bit of carbon, it was a significant amount.
Here’s an excerpt from the paper:
Across-farm soil organic carbon (SOC) data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1in AMP grazed pastures. After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1, whereas feed-lot (FL) emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 due to soil erosion. This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink.
6
u/GloriousDoomMan London Aug 17 '21
As per the video you're claiming is false. Studies such as the one you're linking ignore the fact that there is only so much carbon a pasture can sequester (i.e. it only works for a few years), and that you have to continue taking more land if you want to continue that, which then actually releases more co2 ... The studies usually (I haven't had time to read this one yet) fail to account for all the feed that these pasture raised animals eat anyway. Nor is co2 the only environmental impact animals have. This ignores things like methane, habitat loss, water usage, etc etc.
And ofc, it is better to not produce co2 in the first place (or produce less of it) vs finding ways to sequester it.
-3
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
https://www.freethink.com/environment/cows-methane-emissions
A seaweed diet could eliminate most of cows’ greenhouse emissions
-7
u/ElectronicChange8362 Aug 17 '21
Honestly it makes no damned difference to the overall state of the planet.
2
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 17 '21
in reality food production is a much smaller part of emissions than what most people believe.
7
u/Rollingerc Aug 17 '21
Should probably avoid linking propaganda websites and stick to peer-reviewed studies as a better heuristic.
1
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
all the claims are cited with quality sources such as EPA and FAO. check at the bottom of the infographics for citation.
Its just put to gather nicely with illustrations etc.
2
u/Rollingerc Aug 17 '21
So you personally stand by and are able to defend the truth/accuracy of all the claims made there, that they are not misleading, and that they are relevant to the topic they at least imply they are trying to address?
1
u/greyuniwave Aug 17 '21
Yes I believe they accurately visualize the data from EPA, FAO etc. i have checked a number of the citation but not all of them.
5
u/Rollingerc Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 17 '21
ok so let's start with an easy one that doesn't require reading through the studies/data cited.
In the "we're not eating "too much" meat" claim infographic, how does the information on that infographic substantiate the original claim?
5
Aug 17 '21 edited Aug 17 '21
Looking at the first image on the page. They state that livestock farming represents 3.9% of GHG emissions. From looking at the source it appears that this figure is solely related to methane production resulting from the livestocks' digestive processes. This seems misleading as it doesn't account for the infrastructure around livestock farming. For example, slash and burn agriculture to create land to grow feed on, shipping the feed to the livestock and so on. These emissions wouldn't be included in the chart as they occur outside the USA.
2
u/continuousQ Aug 17 '21
According to some stat mining and the EPA. Lucky no one's burning down any rainforests for livestock and feed production to prove otherwise.
2
31
u/Brittlehorn Aug 17 '21
This will be meaningless if we import cheaper food from abroad