PowerSwitch

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 ...

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.

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 don’t we need decent quantities of farmed animals? Also, aren’t there some parts of Britain where you can do little else but graze sheep?

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

aren’t 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).

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 .

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

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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 don’t we need decent quantities of farmed animals?

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

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.

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 don’t we need decent quantities of farmed animals?

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

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!

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.

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.

Don't be daft. Most humans would never utter the words 'excuse me'.

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

They'd blame the cow .