PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Gas emissions reduced by changing farm animal diet

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:54 pm    Post subject: Gas emissions reduced by changing farm animal diet Reply with quote

Quote:
The Guardian - 30/03/11

A change of diet could help flatulent farm animals reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, a study has said.

Government funded research aimed at helping farmers cut their contribution to climate change shows how to reduce the amount of methane produced by cows and sheep belching and breaking wind.

Researchers at Reading University and the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences found that dairy cows could emit 20% less methane for every litre of milk if fed crushed rapeseed.

Article continues ...

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 11422
Location: way out west

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe the GW gases are produced through the mouth of these animals.

An easier solution would be to cut down on farmed animal numbers.
_________________
The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energy-village



Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 1054
Location: Yorkshire, UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
I believe the GW gases are produced through the mouth of these animals.

An easier solution would be to cut down on farmed animal numbers.


If Britain is ever to reduce use of chemical fertilizers donít we need decent quantities of farmed animals? Also, arenít there some parts of Britain where you can do little else but graze sheep?

PS My knowledge in this area is very limited . . .
Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12007
Location: York

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
arenít there some parts of Britain where you can do little else but graze sheep?

Yer not wrong. 75% of our land is "agricultural", but only 11% is "arable". Those figs imply that yes, 64% of the UK's land area is used for grazing. Minus the tiny amount that might, for example, grow fruit (if indeed that counts as Ag and not Horticulture).
_________________
Soyez rťaliste. Demandez líimpossible.
Space and Spaceability
The Year-Long Lunch Break
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6468
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
Yer not wrong. 75% of our land is "agricultural", but only 11% is "arable". Those figs imply that yes, 64% of the UK's land area is used for grazing. Minus the tiny amount that might, for example, grow fruit (if indeed that counts as Ag and not Horticulture).

I thought a lot of land grew subsidies Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7753
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only to keep your food costs down, John. If we paid the full cost of production of our food farmers wouldn't need subsidies.
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7753
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
I believe the GW gases are produced through the mouth of these animals.


Methane is produced by anaerobic digestion of plant matter in the rumen of animals which is then discharged by belching.

Quote:
An easier solution would be to cut down on farmed animal numbers.


This will happen as Peak Oil takes hold. The cost of fuel and feeds used in intensively farming animals will lead to much higher meat and diary prices which will, in turn, lead to lower consumption.
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6468
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
Only to keep your food costs down, John. If we paid the full cost of production of our food farmers wouldn't need subsidies.

An organic dairy farmer I know pointed out two neighbouring former dairy farms, that are now owned by absentee owners who do nothing with them, but collect subsidies Evil or Very Mad.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 7753
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's because it's not worth producing milk at the price paid by supermarkets, which is less than the production cost. The same is true with pork production and some beef. Farmers aren't paid a "subsidy" any more, we're paid agri-environmental payments for keeping the countryside looking nice. That's why those farmers are getting money without producing anything.
_________________
BLOG

It is very, very, very serious indeed. This is the big one!" Professor Tim Lang, APPGOPO, 25/03/08. And he was talking about food, not oil or the economy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 6651
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

energy-village wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
I believe the GW gases are produced through the mouth of these animals.

An easier solution would be to cut down on farmed animal numbers.


If Britain is ever to reduce use of chemical fertilizers donít we need decent quantities of farmed animals?

PS My knowledge in this area is very limited . . .
Embarassed


Are you suggesting we need the dung for fertiliser? Where did the original nutrients in the dung come from? Animals have to be provided with food....

Before industrial farming animals were needed as a power source, but not as a source of poo. There was no shortage of that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energy-village



Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 1054
Location: Yorkshire, UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UndercoverElephant wrote:
energy-village wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
I believe the GW gases are produced through the mouth of these animals.

An easier solution would be to cut down on farmed animal numbers.


If Britain is ever to reduce use of chemical fertilizers donít we need decent quantities of farmed animals?

PS My knowledge in this area is very limited . . .
Embarassed


Are you suggesting we need the dung for fertiliser? Where did the original nutrients in the dung come from? Animals have to be provided with food....

Before industrial farming animals were needed as a power source, but not as a source of poo. There was no shortage of that.


Yes (though I could be mistaken). If I recall from a course on the economic history of the medieval period, a major factor for the fertility of the soil being very low was because there were so few animals kept to provide fertiliser. Something that changed during the agricultural revolution.

To massively over simplify, the agricultural revolution (crop rotation, enclosures, new technology, breeding etc) encouraged siginificant population growth and freed up a workforce to provide a pool of labour to help fuel the industrial revolution.

If I've misunderstood, someone please enlighten me!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 11422
Location: way out west

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By planting green manure crops, composting sewage, protecting soil from erosion, capturing maximum solar energy and making use of 'wild' food, animal inputs are not required.

It's also important not to let assets leave your land - giving away or selling crops means you have to replace all the substance in them. Fine in a barter situation, though everyone tends to have the same crops at the same time. Laughing
_________________
The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.


Last edited by emordnilap on Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 11422
Location: way out west

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
emordnilap wrote:
I believe the GW gases are produced through the mouth of these animals.


Methane is produced by anaerobic digestion of plant matter in the rumen of animals which is then discharged by belching.

Yes, that diagram:
Aurora wrote:
would be slightly more accurate if the source of the two animal species' emissions were juxtaposed.
_________________
The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aurora



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 8502

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't be daft. Most humans would never utter the words 'excuse me'. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JohnB



Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 6468
Location: Beautiful sunny West Wales!

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aurora wrote:
Don't be daft. Most humans would never utter the words 'excuse me'. Very Happy

They'd blame the cow Laughing.
_________________
John

Eco-Hamlets UK - Small sustainable neighbourhoods
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group