Thanks! It's an important message!

I'm not sure I would survive my first interview on the BBC, I'm to direct and honest. 🤣

Thanks! The sense of farmers on social media standing together is one of the best bits about it. Great sense of "community" and I love the 40 trees for 40yrs idea, really reinforces that we are all in it together!

Absolutely share away!! Your spot on, the bit people miss is that we are competing in a global market. If your production drops and our costs increase we won't see a higher price as imports will replace our product!

Glad it was helpful!

Thanks!

I know it's a tiny percentage, I stay away from arguments which have grey areas, sticking to a simple message.

Exactly! It's not the absolute accuracy, it's about showing the method of calculating.

Thanks! Will do!

I'm very involved in the UFU, I'm working on it. 😅

Or get free coverage and achieve way more by telling farmers to not comply with carbon audits under the current system... However they are weak and so they won't.

Sure, ammonia is another very interesting topic!

Appreciate it! Thanks!

Sure, we sell them in spring, I will do something then. 👍

The renewable energy part doesn't actually matter, same as the fuel for machinery. The grid will decarbonise over time as will fuel with increasing biofuels. Reality is farming is targeted because it serves the interests of billion dollar companies.

As I said, once you start down the scope rabbit whole it gets very confusing. It definitely does end up in double counting.

Thanks!

In my opinion sequestration is often over estimated also. It actually doesn't make much difference. I will work it out sometime, I might be wrong.

My dissertation was on GHG emissions from dairy cows using the "proper" calculations. I didn't do it this time, my goal was really highlight the process and frame the problems with the current calculations.

I left sequestration out as it requires the carbon to be locked in the soil. The actual amount locked in soil on a productive dairy farm is very small. Especially with regular reseeding.

@@FarmTheoryNI . In order for there to be grass growth carbon has to be pumped to the system through photosynthesis whether you're conventional, organic or regenerative a certain unknown amount of of carbon dioxide is needed for grass growth I have read some of the fescue species of grass can be 47% carbon but how much carbon dioxide was taken in by the plant is unknown I suspect more as the plant excrete liquid carbon exudate in exchange for minerals off soil organisms and bacteria in a symbiosis relationship it's not all about chucking nitrogen on and the grass will grow

'Carbon Capture' Round 2 👍

I can. 👍 It won't be much different.

Exactly!! Farmers need to make a stand and force a discussion around this topic imo.

The carbon in the methane comes from the plant, which gets the carbon from the atmosphere?

​@FarmTheoryNI you mentioned in a previous video that the carbon from the atmosphere used to make the plant to feed cattle isn't counted against our "emissions", is that actually true though because if it is it seems criminal? Do they have any reason?

Don't cattle produce a large amount of methane of their own though and isn't methane far more distructive that carbon molecule per molecule. There was something said about feeding cattle a form of seaweed to decrease the methane emitted.

@paulflanagan2750 so nothing comes from nothing. To have methane requires carbon, the cow does convert some of the carbon in her feed to methane(actually unhelpful and counter productive bacteria present in the rumen do it) but not all of it or even close. The plant she eats which is made of carbon got that carbon from the air itself through photosynthesis. So all the carbon that enters the cow came from plants that initially extracted it from the air, even the methane itself degrades back to carbon and hydrogen eventually(I think it actually uses oxygen or water vapor to degrade it), so the question is the warming effect of the much smaller amount of methane released comparable to the carbon extracted from feeding the cow in the first place, plus ultimately its impossible to not have methane emissions even without the cow as the bacteria are everywhere and would turn a certain percentage of grasses and plants into methane even if the cows didn't eat it, infact landfill has the same if not more methane emissions than agriculture because of this. But if they aren't counting the carbon taken from the air when balancing for emissions it just doesn't make sense.

Great comment!! It's crazy when you dig below the surface...

The world has absolutely gone mad. COVID shocked me, I was amazed how placid the population became.