Family dogs are methane producers, like cows, so do we really need them?

Sir, – I refer to George Lyon’s article regarding reducing carbon in Scottish agriculture raising a number of issues (May 6).

It’s a complex subject and a global issue for which global solutions are required. Scotland’s agricultural industry, undoubtedly a world leader from one perspective, is very small in global terms. However Scotland does need to take responsibility and be part of the solution.

Agriculture is lowhanging fruit but cutting cow and sheep numbers in Scotland won’t help.

The climate change committee seem to be using a blunt instrument and only looking at production whereas consumption and demand must be taken into account. Reducing the number of cows and sheep won’t reduce the demand for red meat. Their proposal only works if the demand reduces proportionately. Otherwise one risks importing product with a higher-carbon footprint to fulfil the demand – to the detriment of local farming.

Production of red meat in the UK is considered by experts to have one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world, 50% more efficient than the global average. The UK is only 63% self-sufficient but, as far as I am aware, few of the carbon audit tools take into account accurately the large amount of carbon sequestered by grass pasture. More work needs to be done on this to obtain accurate figures on carbon capture by grass.

Even the Woodland Trust accepts that grass is better at sequestering carbon than trees in some circumstances. Trees absorb the carbon and most of it goes into the soil (72% in the case of broad leaf trees) and 17% into the tree itself. That sequestration into the tree itself is only successful where the tree does not decay or is not burnt. Only 20% of harvested timber remains as wood, the rest being either burnt or pulped, releasing carbon. Carbon absorbed by grass is passed into the soil in an hour or so. The statistics on conifers are worse than for broadleaved trees.

Nature needs grazing animals to control vegetation, improve soil health, and get nutrients back into the soil for grass and crops to grow well.

Methane traps 28 times more heat than CO2 but its lifespan is only 10 years versus 1,000 for CO2. Globally, 558m tonnes of methane is produced with 188m of that coming from agriculture. Some 548m tonnes is absorbed by plants and soil as part of the sink effect. So methane from agriculture is not adding to global warming. There are inconsistencies in the way GHG (greenhouse gases) are calculated for different industries. In one UN report, full life cycle figures were used for agriculture whereas only exhaust emissions were used for transport.

Surely the role and challenge of Scottish agriculture is to produce food economically and environmentally efficiently to feed the nation. Reducing numbers of animals and acreage of land in production to me isn’t the answer. We need to get better at it. In my mind some of the solutions lie in:

• Improved productivity;

• Minimum tillage;

• Improved grass seed mixes allowing for longer leys in our new climatic conditions. Any future subsidy should take into account the seed mixes being used (and rewarding those that use mixes for longer leys), including white clover to assist with the absorption of nitrous oxide;

• Reduced reliance on chemical fertilisers/ increased use of farmyard manure;

• Improved animal rumen efficiency through better feed rations including use of natural additives such as seaweed and other novel input to help the rumen;

• Improved transport connectivity with transference away from a reliance on fossil fuels;

• On-farm production of electricity for farm vehicles;

• User-friendly technology

• Training;

• Better relationship with government bodies;

• More financial stability in the sector to give farmers the confidence to invest (currently my estimate is that confidence is low, much of that due to lack of direction from government as highlighted in the article);

• Recognition that many farmers are doing a huge amount already to tackle the climate change and nature crisis.

This would give farmers the lift in confidence required to invest. I think many farmers feel that their efforts are not given the recognition that they should be.

One last point. This proposal by the CCC is discriminatory. Who are we as humans, and we produce methane too, to reduce another species’ numbers? Cows and sheep produce milk and meat for consumption while most of us produce hot air.

As a parallel take the example of pet dogs, which also produce methane. Are we going to cap the number of pet dogs people can keep?

I completely understand they have a role for families and individuals for companionship etc but do people really need 2, 3, 4 dogs? I would argue cows and sheep are more valuable to humans than pet dogs.

I would love to see which politician would bring in a limitation on pet numbers per household. I’ll leave you with that thought for now. Patrick Harrison, Grantown-on-Spey.

POLEMICS: George Lyon raises a number of issues.