Interesting article - water and climate change

[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.

[furrowtickler]

I think we need to take a breath here ...
Remember this is a scam , the truth will reveal its self in time .
None of us should have to pay this b/s tax , grain or cattle farm. We need to stop throwing knives either way.
A lot of people need to realize "global warming" was created as the bogey man to further push globalization by the U.N. It has been conveniently now changed to "climate change" to encompass a wider range events to fit their agenda . Google "agenda 21"
They are not even hiding this fact now .
Just look at Obama's speech just a day or so ago . He mentioned Globalization at least a dozen times . He has gone full retard on this .
Trump is going to hit the brakes on this globalist leftist agenda endorsed by the U.N. and the MSM. And now the leftist elite are screaming blue murder . They will try to throw Trump under the bus anyway possible now.
Meanwhile at home it is JT's ambition to be on the U.N. - think about what his end goal is, then rethink carbon tax .

[canolacrazy]

amen to that furrow. trump through a monkey wrench into the left's plans to have Hillary further the globablization agenda. a world without borders. now let's sit back and watch trump undo everything they've worked so hard for.

[sumdumguy]

I too am sick and tired of this climate change talk. Reading about the beating Canadians are taking at Marakesh absolutely confounds me. We sequester multiples of and carbon we produce. Tell them to "Piss Off"! Tell them to go and pick some other county's pocket, maybe try Russia😜

[Klause]

Actually grassy, I love beef. I respect our cattle producers. I think they are a vital part of the economy and of our supper


However, 90% of cattle producers don't harp on climate change continually... like you do... which is hypocritical really considering you're a net emitter of greenhouse gases.



Climate change... carbon tax... it's all a complete fraud.


BTW, the reason I mention pulses... they don't use much if any fertilizer (since they produce their own)... and they export 0 water, unlike any meat... at the end of the day, most consumption happens in cities where quite often waste water is sent to the ocean... thus exporting freshwater and turning it into saltwater.


Just ask our unlucky colleagues who farm in the interior of California about that.

[grassfarmer]

Bullshit grass when you pull water from a well it does not return to the well it evaporates. When your cow urinates it evaporates.

I can't believe that people involved in agriculture don't know what the water cycle is. Of course some evaporates - then it condenses and falls back as rain or snow. Other water soaks in and recharges the groundwater the well draws from. Here is a little graphic to help you understand.

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

The point is they need not be net emitters of CO2 as proven by this work in SK. Point #5 showing 17-39kgs of CO2 sequestered for every kg emitted by the cattle.


[URL="http://holisticmanagement.ca/uncategorized/solving-climate-change-with-holistic-management/"]http://http://holisticmanagement.ca/uncategorized/solving-climate-change-with-holistic-management/[/URL]

[Klause]

Grassy my wife wrote her thesis on methane and co2 emissions from livestock...


Cattle emit more co2 they don't themselves "sink" any.


Where cattle shine is 2 places. 1 taking poor land that can't efficiently produce other proteins and make them produce nourishment (grasslands... semi arid areas etc.)


The 2nd is taking low value carbohydrates (barley grass corn etc) and turning them into dense high value proteins.


However this happens at a cost.


Of all three main types of meat protein chicken is the most efficient followed by pork and then beef... based on her research.



As far as the water cycle. Yes you're right. However deep ancient aquafirs do not replenish like you are suggesting. Also once water evaporates it is at the mercy of jets teams and other weather phenomenon which means there's a very low chance of it ever getting back to where it is needed or came from. Point in case why it's called exporting freshwater.