Arla

[delilah]

Sorry I am not aware of contents and I suspect your interest lays more with telling us why it is a terrible submission.

My interest lies in stopping cows being blamed for climate change.

This Lords enquiry is only being discussed on this thread because I raised it. Arla producers need to know about it.

So please don't come the 'you're a troublemaker' line. I shouldn't be having to be on here. You should be drawing this stuff to folks attention.

 

[bar718]

Care to share some of the points made ? I would be more than happy to make a submission to support your case.

By the way you reply an expert like you we would presume will of already made your submission or …….

 

[delilah]

By the way you reply an expert like you we would presume will of already made your submission or …….

Not, remotely, an expert. Concerned environmental campaigner and ruminant farmer, in that order. But I have provided some input to those who are making a submission on behalf of BFU.

Arla employs a sustainability person, you have the resources to be nailing the lie that cows cause climate change. My view remains that you aren't doing so because you are happy to be the cartel's get out of jail card on scope 3 emissions.

 

[frederick]

This discussion has become pointless again and back to the same positions as last time this discussion happened on here.

 

[Farmer Keith]

Slippery slope once we start using bovair as far as I’m concerned, very difficult to argue it’s not an issue if we’re all feeding an additive to combat it. Should we even be trailing it?

 

[onesiedale]

Slippery slope once we start using bovair as far as I’m concerned, very difficult to argue it’s not an issue if we’re all feeding an additive to combat it. Should we even be trailing it?

Not only that, after 12 years of use, the "science" will tell you that if you stop using it you will be increasing emissions!

Therefore the system is hooked on feeding an additive by default legislation.
Any idea how the pricing structure for the additive will be formulated on future?
Any idea that your customers will continue to pay for it's use?
Not only is it morally wrong in the sense of upsetting the ruminant diet, it is also another cost on the industry that ultimately the producers will bare.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Slippery slope once we start using bovair as far as I’m concerned, very difficult to argue it’s not an issue if we’re all feeding an additive to combat it. Should we even be trailing it?

That’s the issue in a nutshell. By using it, we’re all admitting guilt and that there actually is "a problem". Farmers should be paid handsomely if they choose to do it at all, not forced over a barrel without lube, which is exactly how this will pan out.

Of all the problems around the climate and the environment this is the one thing that should be left well alone. But no, it’s one single issue, methane = bad. Reductionist and far too simplistic.

 

[dinderleat]

By the way you reply an expert like you we would presume will of already made your submission or …….

Pointless replying

 

[frederick]

Not only that, after 12 years of use, the "science" will tell you that if you stop using it you will be increasing emissions!

Therefore the system is hooked on feeding an additive by default legislation.
Any idea how the pricing structure for the additive will be formulated on future?
Any idea that your customers will continue to pay for it's use?
Not only is it morally wrong in the sense of upsetting the ruminant diet, it is also another cost on the industry that ultimately the producers will bare.

Don't disagree with most of what you have said.
But please don't use Morally wrong in the sense with upsetting the ruminant diet.

What is yeast. Surely anybody that feeds bicarb is offsetting something they have done wrong feeding a ruminant. Fats to increase energy intake. In moral terms if we accept any of these there is no argument against feeding to achieve a different aim of methane reduction rather than the normal of increasing milk output.

I am far from arguing for its general use but to argue against on moral terms just makes us look silly when compared to several other things we are prepared to do to our ruminants.

 

[delilah]

Slippery slope once we start using bovair as far as I’m concerned, very difficult to argue it’s not an issue if we’re all feeding an additive to combat it. Should we even be trailing it?

We are past trialing it. It is here, now. UK dairy farmers are medicating their cows feed to save the planet, now. The House of Lords are deciding whether this approach needs to be backed up with primary legislation, now.

This discussion has become pointless again and back to the same positions as last time this discussion happened on here.

So, no. It isn't a pointless discussion and we aren't in the same position as last time it was discussed.

 

[Homesy]

Methane feed additives. No need to reduce numbers. But we have to use these forever and ever, and hang the microbiology/soil consequences, for it to make any sense. Which it doesn’t.

We have to stop the narrative that cows produce any net methane. ARLA succumbing to this nonsense is akin to pleading guilty for a crime you did not commit.

 

[FarmerWasty]

We have to stop the narrative that cows produce any net methane. ARLA succumbing to this nonsense is akin to pleading guilty for a crime you did not commit.

They are simply marketing data and pushing us to make marketable data. "succumb to this nonsense" lol

 

[DaveGrohl]

Don't disagree with most of what you have said.
But please don't use Morally wrong in the sense with upsetting the ruminant diet.

What is yeast. Surely anybody that feeds bicarb is offsetting something they have done wrong feeding a ruminant. Fats to increase energy intake. In moral terms if we accept any of these there is no argument against feeding to achieve a different aim of methane reduction rather than the normal of increasing milk output.

I am far from arguing for its general use but to argue against on moral terms just makes us look silly when compared to several other things we are prepared to do to our ruminants.

Agreed, but difference being, those other alterations are independent decisions based on commercial factors by individual farmers. There is zero commercial factor here unless farmers are paid handsomely for services to the planet.

Who will be willing to pay this tariff forever? No one. The usual route will be taken. Tiny premium having the effect of an overall reduced pool price (for non-compliance) will be the reality. Feed it or you get less money. RT. Around and round we go.

 

[jondear]

Don't disagree with most of what you have said.
But please don't use Morally wrong in the sense with upsetting the ruminant diet.

What is yeast. Surely anybody that feeds bicarb is offsetting something they have done wrong feeding a ruminant. Fats to increase energy intake. In moral terms if we accept any of these there is no argument against feeding to achieve a different aim of methane reduction rather than the normal of increasing milk output.

I am far from arguing for its general use but to argue against on moral terms just makes us look silly when compared to several other things we are prepared to do to our ruminants.

You don't have to feed all these goodies to get cows to milk sustainable .If everyone took a hit on yield prices would rise costs would go down .Public might think farming is not all about making money and pushing cows to their limits .Just a thought .

 

[frederick]

You don't have to feed all these goodies to get cows to milk sustainable .If everyone took a hit on yield prices would rise costs would go down .Public might think farming is not all about making money and pushing cows to their limits .Just a thought .

I don't feed any of the goodies I mentioned but I don't have a moral issue with those that do.

 

[delilah]

Absolute dereliction of duty by Arla on the issue of medicated feed. Anyone who sees the need to make their own submission to the House of Lords inquiry, feel free to take some pointers from the attached.

 

[crashbox]

Absolute dereliction of duty by Arla on the issue of medicated feed. Anyone who sees the need to make their own submission to the House of Lords inquiry, feel free to take some pointers from the attached.

Did you right this?

I enjoyed reading it.

 

[Dairyfarmer999]

If Arla can turn a pound selling the customers what they want then what does it matter. Look at all the non Arla suppliers consistently trying to bring down what we do. Jealousy my friend will never get you anywhere. Concentrate on what you are doing.

 

[Eronce]

Absolute dereliction of duty by Arla on the issue of medicated feed. Anyone who sees the need to make their own submission to the House of Lords inquiry, feel free to take some pointers from the attached.

Hopefully everyone who reads this thread will make the effort to read this
Well done

 

[frederick]

So I'm an Asda supplier have been Morrisons in the past.

Have done milk sure with vets in the past but thought Noah might be quicker and cheaper.

Spent my £71. Clicked continue button for 6 minutes got all questions correct and certificate awarded. Nothing read nothing watched.

However I now have my paperwork to tick another box though I have very little idea what has been achieved apart from me being £71 lighter.

Do it all again in 2 years.