Interesting article - water and climate change

[foragefarmer]

Hamloc

Not saying we should reduce or cut back, just making the point that it really doesn't effect the rest of the world if we reduced production by 80%, other counties will make it up. Countries with money will always have food, the countries that really need the grain will continue to starve.

I really don't have a comment on the purposed Carbon Tax, did some reading on it and have not found enough information as to how it's going to effect my farm. Not a 100% sure but I did read that the Alberta NDP made a comment their farmers will not have to pay. Hamloc, I know you farm in Alberta maybe you know the details and can correct me if I'm wrong about that point, Thanks

[Hamloc]

Forage

Marked fuel in Alberta will be exempt from the carbon tax. As far as I know natural gas and propane will not. Grain and livestock hauling by custom haulers will be affected by the tax as will fertilizer production. The carbon tax will raise our costs no firm numbers yet. As I have said before I would have no problem with a carbon tax if all countries in the world were subject to the same carbon tax. They are not, so it raises my cost with no appreciable benefit and increases the size and cost of government, something I disagree with.

[foragefarmer]

Klaus

"So on that basis, looks like you're out of a job grassy.... after all... wasting energy, producing co2 and methane, and not producing efficient food.... "


Weren't you bragging this summer about selling round bales to "wasting energy, producing co2 and methane, and not producing efficient food.... " Be careful what you say here on Agriville you may not have those customers next year!!!

[grassfarmer]

The Trudeau Liberals released a new 87 page document on dealing with climate change. The new goal for C02 is 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. So Grassfarmer I am curious if you had to own 80% less cattle could you make a living. Also curious how we produce the needed increase in the food the world will need but produce 80% less C02. Now you will say I am being overly simplistic but lets hear your opinion.

Hamloc I don't need to own 80% less cattle, just produce the same amount of beef emitting 80% less GHG. It's a big target but I'm prepared to head in that direction. We are already looking at ways to replace the limited amount of N fertilizer we use currently. Move further away from mechanically harvesting feed for cattle. Using fuel more efficiently when we do have to run engines. Using electricity to replace other fuels is a possibility we have in MB given the huge supply of hydroelectic generated power which is the lowest emission fuel we have.

Cattle cause greenhouse gasses, they waste water.


In-efficient. Pork and chicken are way more efficient.

So is zero till grain production. Can produce way more calories in a soybean, lentil, pea, wheat, or corn field than you can on a pasture.


So on that basis, looks like you're out of a job grassy.... after all... wasting energy, producing co2 and methane, and not producing efficient food....


Plus all those animal welfare issues.

Yes, very funny Klause, I know you're smarter than that.

Cattle don't waste water, it cycles through them and through us when we eat the meat. I think a lot of people don't realise that the water we have today is the same stuff the dinosaurs bathed in - there is no "new" source of water on earth. It just cycles through plants, animals, the soil, rivers, aquifers and the oceans and back through rain clouds.

If you read articles on efficiency of beef versus chicken or pork it's laughable. The science is really weak on this topic as the needed research has never been done - yes chicken or pork are "more efficient" in terms of lbs of grain/pound of gain but they don't factor in the emissions to produce the grain, haul it to the hog/chicken barn, the power to heat them etc etc. Producing beef as we do, utilizing grazing and roughage that would otherwise be wasted is so much more efficient - and we are managing the land to sequester more carbon than any other form of agriculture.

You can maybe produce more calories per acre but at what cost? how many fossil fuel calories does it take to produce a calorie of food derived from grain/oilseeds? That's the calculation that needs to be done - count the diesel, the fertilizer production etc. And you can't pretend that all the grain goes to human food - what about the grain that goes to feed cattle in a feedlot to produce beef - you want to talk about inefficient? Going from memory the "Power Steer" article by Michael Pollen reckoned that it took @284 gallons of oil to produce a finished feedlot steer. Crazy use of fossil fuels.

[Hamloc]

First Grassfarmer you tell us to listen to the science, now you tell us the science is wrong when it comes the amount of water used to raise beef. In some quick googling on the subject I find that it takes 5 gallons of water to produce I gram of protein from a pulse crop like field peas but it takes 29.6 gallons of water to produce one gram of protein from beef. In another article I find it takes 76% less water to finish a beef animal in the feedlot on grain than on grass.

The reason I suggested that you would have to reduce your herd by 80% is that would be the only way to reduce the methane emissions by 80%. Now of course as a beef farmer I wouldn't want this to happen to you or me but I am attempting to show where public opinion and government legislation is heading.

[biglentil]

It takes 10 calories of feed to get one calorie return in the form of beef. Beef is far from a climate change solution its a luxury.

C02 is an inert gas necessary for all life has nothing in common with a toxic solid like arsenic.

[grassfarmer]

First Grassfarmer you tell us to listen to the science, now you tell us the science is wrong when it comes the amount of water used to raise beef. In some quick googling on the subject I find that it takes 5 gallons of water to produce I gram of protein from a pulse crop like field peas but it takes 29.6 gallons of water to produce one gram of protein from beef. In another article I find it takes 76% less water to finish a beef animal in the feedlot on grain than on grass.

The reason I suggested that you would have to reduce your herd by 80% is that would be the only way to reduce the methane emissions by 80%. Now of course as a beef farmer I wouldn't want this to happen to you or me but I am attempting to show where public opinion and government legislation is heading.

I'm not telling you the science is wrong on water consumption, i'm saying the result is being misinterpreted. Seems people are not getting what I'm saying about the water cycle and waste. In its simplest form if you pump water from your well and let it run out through the garden hose onto the lawn you are not wasting water. You are removing it from the ground and returning it to the ground - the only thing you are wasting is the power used to pump it. Same with cattle drinking water, or vegetables, or humans it all returns to the water cycle eventually and is not lost.

Where the research has been lacking is in producing results showing that beef produced in a feedlot uses 76% less water or produces x% less methane. I've read the research in detail and invariably what they do is count the days an animal is alive and multiply it by water use or methane emission. That is not the true picture though because they are not factoring in the grain production and transportation costs in terms of
water use or GHG emissions. What if the feedlot is growing silage on irrigated land as many do? that water use isn't being included either. They are also not including the beneficial effects of the animal helping sequestration of CO2 by grazing pasture versus being in a feedlot.

Again the notion that you have to reduce your herd 80% to reduce emissions 80% is simplistic and not necessarily true. If your farm sequesters more carbon than it emits using cattle as the tool to achieve that through soil/forage management maybe you can increase your herd by 80% and be part of the solution not part of the problem. We need to start looking at things in a more holistic manner not little isolated snapshots here and there.

[biglentil]

Bullshit grass when you pull water from a well it does not return to the well it evaporates. When your cow urinates it evaporates. Aquifers all over the world are depleating at an alarming rate.

Also grass saying that cows sequester c02 is laughable what the hell do you think they exhale?

[canolacrazy]

i am sick of hearing about climate change. governments have been talking about it since the mid nineties, sending up apocalyptic arguments, yet the third world keeps building coal plants, business as usual. to hear Obama and trudeau talk, the threat is imminent and the earth's destruction is just around the corner. however during the u.s. election, hardly a word about this existential threat to humanity. am I to take it seriously? if I am supposed to, then governments should show leadership and jack up the taxes to the level needed to severely restrict carbon usage, or just forget it. $10/tonne in 2018 is laughable. with trump in the white house you can forget anything in the u.s. to limit carbon usage, in fact the opposite as he tries to fulfill his election promise to get America rolling again. without the u.s. in on it, it's over. accept it and let's get on with life.

[biglentil]

Cows are near the bottom of highest C02 emitters.

[biglentil]

Beef 30 times the C02 produced of lentils on the farthest right. Grass you are the pot calling the kettle black. I hope you pay 30 times the tax as the rest of us. No offense to other beef farmers C02 is a good thing. C02 tax is not.

[TSIPP]

about the only thing my land is good for is cows, and there is lots of water around.