Do true believers eat this stuff

While I agree with some of your ideas in general, your facts on many things are inaccurate. One example is artificial insemination in beef production. Most of it is done in seedstock herds that produce bulls for commercial cattle producers. About 90% of cows are bull bred. There are many factors related to overall herd management that make AI almost impossible to use for many commercial producers. Conception rates using AI at first service are 60-70% tops so bulls are run with the cows anyway even in herds that AI.

Also in a previous post you claimed almost all of maize and soy crops were consumed by animals. It’s actually about half because only the grain is taken, leaving an equivalent amount of crop residue which if managed correctly sequesters large amounts of carbon. There is corn residue grazing, but it’s usually the maintenance phase of gestation so actual carbon removal from the system is low.

Also, rice production I believe is the third largest producer of methane in agriculture. You can look that up it’s been a long time and I don’t grow rice. So we should avoid eating rice as well as beef.

 

It appears you are right and I was wrong about AI in beef herds.
However it makes no difference in terms of the methane produced by livestock.
The non-feed parts of animal crops may be half in some cases (although not in grass or hay) but methane will still be released as it composts and they are grown in huge quantities taking land which could produce foods that can be used to feed the population without the large amount of greenhouse gases which come with meat production.
If rice produces methane at anywhere near the amounts that come with meat production then yes we should strive to reduce consumption of it. I doubt that the overall impact is comparable though.

 

Like I said, on your overall theory on land use I tend to agree. It will never happen though because you will never get people to give up corn fed beef etc. Not voluntarily. That’s the theme of the OP. Almost everyone is hypocritical when it comes to climate change. You seem to be a refreshing outlier.

Back to methane. Crop residue from corn, soybeans, and wheat do not produce methane because they break down by aerobic means. Anaerobic decomposition is the culprit. Rice is grown in standing water in most instances, hence anaerobic environment. Incidentally, forests in very wet climates or poorly drained soil are huge producers of methane. Also, while the actual amounts are low because it isn’t really that common, composting your banana peels and spud skins like a true modern hippie produces a lot of methane. Again, primarily anaerobic decomposition.

As far as land use and diet, the ball is in the consumer’s court. I will grow what you all want to eat. I’ve actually experimented with forage based beef production on crop land when commodity prices are low and it works. I’ll plant filbert trees or whatever. But the market will have to drive change. As long as demand is for 48 oz. fountain drinks, marbled prime beef, and cheap poultry and pork, I’m going to have to grow corn, soybeans, and feedlot beef.

The bison industry attempted to change the paradigm and failed miserably. Unfortunately change will not happen because of the hypocrisy I’ve mentioned on here before and the OP is addressing now. Kudos to you for acting on your beliefs.

 

Typically the sugar in the fruit juices that you mentioned is high-fructose corn syrup. And HFCS is a known problem and to be avoided. I'm a label reader and no HFCS goes home with me from the grocery store. And given the prevalence of it, that is hard to do.

 

So if aerobic composting doesn't produce methane does it produce CO2?

 

I do my best.
I live off grid in a truck, my power comes from solar panels.
I try not to consume unnecessarily, I replace things only when they are completely worn out. My mobile kitchen (for film and TV catering) is 31 years old and my tiny 999cc car is 18 years old.
I use a composting toilet and return my waste to the land (it goes on to the muck heap after 2 years).
My water use at home is tiny, less than 20 ltrs a day. I know this because I have to carry it to the truck.
I don't eat meat although as a chef I do cook it for others. I'm not about forcing my beliefs on others but will explain in detail why I don't eat it if asked.
I don't fly unless absolutely necessary.
Like you, I believe progress must be consumer lead but I would like to see prices reflect the true cost and support the idea of a carbon tax. Not for wealth redistribution as it is often portrayed but to change consumer behavior.
Obviously my personal actions will not make a jot of difference in the big picture but when asked what I do to save the environment I can bore for hours.
I have great respect for farmers especially the guy whose farm I live on. He's very intellegent and one of the greenest people I know. His actions are mostly financially lead as his small traditional farm is barely profitable. The feild structure has not changed since Anglo-Saxon times and his hedgerows (vital for wildlife) are centuries old. He does spray but only the bare minimum. His machinery is ancient, the machinery for threshing is from the 1950s and until recently was often powered by a stream engine.

 

Yes. Any use of carbohydrates for energy in an aerobic environment produces co2. So whatever bacteria, fungi, or multiple cell animal life is doing the decomposition is producing co2.

So growing plants also return co2 to the atmosphere. Recent, not well publicized research has revealed plants have an interesting habit of releasing much less co2 back into the environment under high co2 atmospheric conditions. So not only will plants sequester more carbon by increased growth rates as the planet warms, they will emit less co2 gas as well. The more we learn the more we discover our ignorance.

 

Thanks for sharing. When you say your actions won’t have meaningful effect I disagree. The good example you set is worth more than 5 billion hypocrites yapping about climate change.

I’m not a climate change denier I’m a climate change appreciator. I much prefer a warming climate to a cooling one. With global population increases cooling would be disastrous. That said I have no problem with slowing carbon emissions as long as they aren’t paid for with human suffering.

I don’t want to get too long winded but I eat virtually no meat, have negative carbon carbon emissions from home heating/cooling, raise beef cattle that are finished in the feedlot, grow almost all my own food, and am a carbon sequesterer through my farming and grazing practices. Climate change is not the primary motivation for any of these decisions but except for raising beef I’m a raging green in practice if not ideologically. From your comments it sounds like you understand why Ag producers tend to take care of the environment. Nobody loves the land more than the farmer who lives on it and raises his children there as well as makes a living from it.

 

That's interesting. How does that work? The carbon is still going to be released when it decomposes (or gets eaten) and you would think that a bigger plant would just release more. Plants can only store carbon while they are alive and growing unless they are turned into furniture or something.
I find the carbon cycle fascinating.

 

I think small traditional family farmers are fantastic guardians of the countryside. Unfortunately they are failing at an alarming rate and it is often large conglomerates chasing only the bottom line that tend to buy the land. In the past (I'm talking UK here) they were the ones who ripped out the hedgerows to make the huge fields for their massive combines. The old agricultural subsidies of the Common Market (old EU) were largely responsible for this by guaranteeing to buy the crop at a set price.
The over production this resulted in brought the price down and killed the smaller farms.
The current agricultural subsidies are much better as they are paid on the basis of countryside stewardship. Maintaining hedgerows, providing 4m borders around fields for wildlife (particularly insect life) and so on. They no longer reward over production and high yeilds through spraying etc.

 

If more true believers were like you I wouldn't have a problem with them. Most preach Doom and gloom and only democrats can save us while not changing a thing in their personal lives.

 

I would like to thank 557 and Montegiffo for the kind of conversation and debate that I long for in this forum and very rarely get. I've learned a lot from both of you and it's refreshing to watch an exchange of ideas without the partisanship and name calling that is so prevalent in here.

 

Fixating on the greenhouse effect is sometimes a shortcoming of the environmental movement. Soil erosion, habitat loss and pollution from chemicals and plastics are equally important issues which don't get the airtime they warrant IMO.
However, short term agricultural advantages in yeilds will be outweighed by the longer term disadvantages caused by loss of land to rising sea levels, droughts, floods, wildfires, storm damage etc.
Also the feedback loops caused by defrosting tundra releasing methane, loss of reflecting ice, reduction in carbon capturing capacity of the oceans etc are all hard to predict and who knows where the real tipping point is.
However much of an advantage switching to a reduced meat diet is the real culprit in all this is fossil fuels. Whilst Presidents are bought and owned by the fossil fuel lobbies this will be hard to change. The vested interests are too great and to have a denier in charge who pulls out of the Paris accord and calls GW a Chinese hoax is disastrous. Trump's greatest crime IMO.

 

Sod off you Nazi.

 

Only a change in consumer habits can save us. This should not be a partisan issue, it is an issue of education. The truth may be out there but it's bloody hard to find these days.

 

Most of the carbon sequestration in my “world” is increasing organic matter in the soil(as roots and decomposed plant material), on top of the soil as un-decomposed crop residue in fields, as grass matting in forage carryover in pastures, and in growing and dormant cover crops.

Historically, organic matter content of soils in crop farming have been decreasing. The use of synthetic fertilizers made up the difference in maintaining and increasing yields. Now we are learning it is to our economic advantage to increase soil organic matter. So burning of crop residue is now rare. Minimum and no till practices are more common, and cover crops are gaining popularity.

Change is coming slowly in spite of our continued government interference in the US. They need to stop making farmers prostitute themselves to the state. But that’s another subject.

I’m sorry I’m not an expert on co2 and plants. My formal education was over 20 years ago and that’s forever when you consider how fast knowledge is increasing. I will have to read more on the mechanism plants use to decrease co2 emissions in high co2 environments. There is also indication now that as soil temperatures warm, microbes in the soil that perform decomposition become less efficient. So the result is organic matter increasing at an increasing rate as the planet warms.

The bottom line is nature seems well equipped to deal with the carbon in fuels that once was available to support more plant and animal life than we have today.

 

To counter that though the Oceans which are our largest mechanism for removing carbon from the atmosphere are less efficient as temperatures rise and acidification takes place.

 

I agree with this. My efforts to increase soil organic matter, increase crop residue cover, and utilize cover crops are based a lot on wind and water erosion control and water infiltration. Many actions we can take have more than one positive effect on the environment. Another example is rotational grazing of pastures. It helps control erosion but also adds beauty by eliminating unsightly and dangerous eroded cow paths.

While all these are debatable concerns on some level, I believe the greatest danger to society from reliance on commercial agriculture is already being realized. It’s actually a part of the ongoing debate on causation of mass shootings and suicide (mental health). The further and longer people are removed from interacting with nature the worse our problems will become I believe. I’d encourage anyone interested to dig up some of the research on effects of nature (rural) lifestyle on behavior and mental health as opposed to urban living. Especially in children.

I believe we are still too ignorant of nature’s abilities to form hard beliefs on these points. And we are ignoring some of these abilities we have recently discovered that I’ve already mentioned. I’m keeping an open mind and a healthy amount of skepticism.

I think we have an unhealthy fear of available carbon. Sometimes I think we’re just sore that nature devised a solar energy storage mechanism superior to what we’ve been able to devise so far. We possess knowledge to use climate change to our advantage. People like Geoff Lawton and others have proven we can design systems that can use predicted weather anomalies and increased atmospheric co2 to turn deserts into forests and barren hillsides into productive food production environments. If we are going to blame politicians like Trump for our problems, who ought we to blame for not pursuing these solutions right before our eyes?

 

Yes that is our current understanding. Yet we thought the same thing about soil microbes and vegetation until very recently. Our actual understanding of this whole subject is analogous to toddlers eating and flinging sand at one another in a sand box.

 

Those who, like him, deny that there is even an issue over climate change and CO2 emissions?
Those who discount the consensus of scientific opinion and promote bad science funded by the same fossil fuel interests exacerbating the problem in the first place?
I dunno, in all honesty I prefer to look for solutions rather than place blame but I'm not going to ignore obvious culprits.

 

It sure is complex. Data collection is still insufficient after only 30 years and the variables seem infinite. Good efforts are being made to try to interpret the data but it is fraught with controversy. General consensus seems to indicate that higher temp's lead to more release due to stratification of the water and acidification is killing off the flora and fauna which help trap co2.
It's all above my paygrade to be honest but this NASA article lays out some of the complications.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

 

I’m for solutions as well. Ones that are really solutions. International feel good/blame others pow wows aren’t on my list of solutions. Some people have a lot of faith in them. They could be right. I’ve yet to see one actually make a difference.

 

The solutions have to be at both local and global levels.
Pulling out of the largest ever global accord is a ****** move motivated by domestic political and financial motives IMO.
Sure, the Paris accord has failings but it is at least discussing the problem and setting goals. Too much talk and too few solutions is still better than no talk and no solutions.
I think that portraying it as a wealth redistribution talking shop is dishonest and counterproductive (not saying you are but many do).

 

Abandoning all meat production will not reduce CO2-emissions. For example, if Norway stopped meat production, the areas used for sheep grazing would turn into an overgrown methane producing wasteland. It would be "nature", sure, but it would also mean loss of agricultural land, which would have to be replaced by the much rarer land where it's possible to grow food for humans.

I agree that using food grown in areas where food for human consumption is possible, as fodder in meat production is the wrong way to go. For example, Norway keeps importing soy from Brazil, to feed pigs, chicken, and to some degree cows. The true carbon emission comes from the transport, which is reliant on fossil fuels. Other than that, it's all in the carbon cycle, and not particularly bad, apart from methane. But methane also doesn't last long. And if agriculturally produced methane just get replaced by "natural" produced methane, we haven't really improved on anything. (And this naturally produced methane would happen in areas where we've abandoned agriculture. But instead of being a byproduct of making food, it would just be a byproduct of vegetation rotting on unused land.)

Overgrazing is a problem somewhere. But I think a lot of people seem to think it's the case everywhere. But in Norway, it's the exact opposite problem. Here, the biodiversity is threatened by undergrazing. The old cultural landscape is disappearing, changing how it's been for thousands of years, while areas that formerly were used for sustainable farming, is turning into useless wet forests which eventually rots and produces methane and CO2, for no societal gain. Sure, that methane is "natural", and is therefore not counted on statistics regarding emissions, but it does in fact increase the overall emissions more than actually using the land.

If I eat some mutton, from a sheep that has been eating all of its food in an area where it's impossible to grow food for humans, and it's been transported a short way to a slaughterhouse, there's nothing wrong with that. It's actually keeping the emissions lower than if that land were used for nothing, and instead rotted in the natural way. Also, it reduces some of the pressure on the land where it is possible to grow human food. And then we haven't even taken into account the use of fossil fuels, which is really the only thing that matters in this case, as that's what's adding more carbon the the carbon cycle.

There's almost no fossil fuel used from a sheep here. Just a little for collecting grass for winter, and a little for transporting the sheep to the slaughterhouse and the stores. And in return, we get a very energy dense food product. But if that's going to be replaced by for example wheat, it takes a LOT more fossil fuels to harvest it, process it, and transport it. Also, since there's less areas where it's possible to grow it, it will most likely be transported from far away. Adding even more fossil fuels to the carbon cycle.

 

I don't think I've suggested stopping all meat production. I've consistently talked about reducing it especially factory farming methods.
I've suggested that people should stop eating cheap meat several times a day and get back to eating quality meat more infrequently.
I've also talked about re-wilding areas no longer needed for agriculture currently used as a result of the gross inefficiencies of meat production.
I'm not familiar with the agricultural history of Norway but many areas in Wales and Scotland which were previously hillside forests were cleared for the grazing of sheep. A reversal of that would benefit wildlife by increasing natural habitat (if natural habitat can really exist in the UK) and benefit the atmosphere by locking carbon in the soil and trees.