[Fleecewife]

I have just completed the Australian online ‘Climate Change’ series of lectures. One of the contributors to greenhouse gases is farm livestock. I think sheep are being lumped in with cattle here, but it seems unfair and rather one-track minded to me. First off, the cattle whose methane output has been experimentally measured are all necessarily housed, in order to capture the methane given off. Secondly, in order to be housed they must be partially grain fed and partially fermented grass fed ie silage. These lead to abnormal gut flora so the methane output is unlikely to be comparable with outdoor cattle. Thirdly, outdoors the grass and surrounding trees will absorb a percentage of the methane given off, unlike gases collected in a closed shed, which would normally be vented directly into the atmosphere.

So, in order fairly to lump together sheep with cattle, the sheep would also need to be housed, and also fed grain and fermented forage. The same limitations on accuracy apply.
In addition I have observed that sheep produce nothing like the volume of gas that cattle do.

However, the main point I want to make is that these animals have valuable secondary ‘crops’ including skins from cattle and wool and skins from sheep.
Sheep’s wool in particular is surely the most eco friendly fibre around. If we cut back on the number of sheep bred, then wool will become expensive, perhaps on a par with the inevitable increases in costs of fibre made from fossil fuels. The worst culprit for high fossil fuel inputs and water usage is cotton. This crop is the greediest in the world, using enormous amounts of water, fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides in its cultivation, and on top of that are all the processing environmental costs too. People think of lovely natural cotton, but in fact its environmental cost is extreme.

I am positive that wool is the key to low impact fibre production for the future. Chemical and water inputs during cultivation are minimal, and all water used in cleaning the wool prior to processing can be cleaned and returned safely to the environment or reused - and of course the lanolin filtered off is yet another useful product.
Once turned into clothing, washing of woollen products can be less frequent, and the clothing, bed covers, furnishings etc will last far longer than fabrics produced from fossil fuel sources.
When we consider the methane output from these animals we should also take into account bigtime the production of wool, so food and clothing from one animal and one space - quite a bargain.

Incidentally, in these calculations of methane output from living things, I have not yet seen mention of, say, wild herds of bison, horses (domestic and wild) or in particular the SEVEN MILLION human beings living today - a whole lot of methane.


Also posted on Ravelry

[waterbuffalofarmer]

I agree, however what about people who can't wear woolen clothes because of allergies? I think climate change is not only because of animals, but mostly because of human beings and pollution.

[Porterlauren]

I'm screwed then, because I have bald sheep.

[Fleecewife]

I agree, however what about people who can't wear woolen clothes because of allergies? I think climate change is not only because of animals, but mostly because of human beings and pollution.

Well of course, but apparently livestock and food production between them cause a big proportion of the greenhouse gases emitted. Often quoted is 20% - bad enough - but if you take into consideration methane from livestock plus nitrous oxide from fertilisers, it rises to a whopping 50% !!!  I was amazed to discover that air travel contributes only 5% to total greenhouse gases, for example, but nonetheless reducing air travel will help in a small way.  Similarly turning down your heating by one degree, or turning off the standby lights on electrical equipment, or not leaving lights blazing when you're not in a room (or an office block at night)  will only save a very small proportion of the total, but all these small totals add up.

Yes I agree, there are bound to be those who are allergic to wool and fleece, just as there are those who already don't eat meat.  I'm sure there will still be synthetics around no matter how expensive it becomes after peak oil, and silk production.  Wool though is endlessly renewable for so little environmental cost, and has the ability to keep you warm in winter but cool in summer.  I do so hope we see a return to its previous popularity.

[Fleecewife]

I'm screwed then, because I have bald sheep.

 

[Marches Farmer]

I think such "studies" can be skewed to rpove whatever the researcher wants them to (and I speak as one whose finals included Applied Statistics).  I remember a NZ study a couple of years ago that concluded that NZ lamb was far more "eco-friendly" than UK lamb.  It later emerged that the researchers had assumed that UK sheep were housed over the winter!

[Buttermilk]

We might be helping climate change along but it is an entirely natural cycle.  Where I live has been under ice with at least two ice ages, been a warm sea bed - from what boffins infer due to the type of sediment left behind and been a tropical forest at least once in the planets lifetime.  Many of these climates were long before man started tinkering with polluting the place.  To say mankinds actions can prevent global climate changing is like asking King Canute to control the sea.

[Marches Farmer]

We have 17 small-leaved limes on the farm, estimated to have germinated around 1200 years ago, when the weather was much warmer than it is now.  I can't believe that the Romans had that big a carbon footprint!  Mosre recently the folks around here still talk about the winter of 1946/7, when the snow was so deep you could touch the telephone wires, then there was the Great Drought of 1976 .....

We had guests from California staying in the farm holiday cottage this Summer and the State is now in "100% Dought" due to two very dry summers and not getting any melt waters from the mountains last Winter (buy your almonds for the Christmas Cake soon, as California produces 80% of the world's almonds and the crop has failed).

[Fleecewife]

Aha - climate change deniers.  Sure, individual studies can be skewed (I did statistics too) but the mass of evidence is overwhelming that Man is causing the speeding up of climate change - not causing it, no one says that.
We have to be aware of the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.  Weather is a description of the small changes in conditions from day to day, year to year and century to century.  Climate describes the cycles over millennia.

An important thing to remember also is that humans will be unable to live in a vastly different climate, especially the ever increasing numbers of us, who all have to be fed and clothed and our waste disposed of, our homes heated and cooled.  One of the consequences of the melting ice caps, which are receding alarmingly, is a rise in sea levels.  This wouldn't matter per se and has happened before, but if you then add into the equation that most of the densely inhabited cities, areas and countries of the world are found at not much above sea level, an awful lot of people are going to be either drowned or displaced, and even if they are resettled, will there be enough land to grow their crops on, and will the folk already living in those new areas be delighted to share?
Similarly, climate change does not mean simply global warming, it means changes in the weather we experience, with an increase in huge storms, floods, long droughts, wetter weather in already wet areas, and creeping desert in already dry areas.

Actually I'm quite surprised that people are still denying that as a species we are worsening the climatic changes happening to our world, against all the evidence.  The significance of the changes really only affect humanity, as the Earth itself will go on very comfortably without our parasitic presence.

[Porterlauren]

Two things -

1. Anyone who thinks that the human race has little or no effect on the planets bio systems are naive or wishful.

2. I really hope that wool doesn't take off in a big way and become a cash crop again, because I keep shedding sheep.

[devonlady]

I remember walking with my father as a girl, many years ago on land about 100 miles from the sea and Fa finding a stone and cracking it open to find a perfect fossilised marine shell inside. This land, he told me, was once under the sea and, in time will be once more.
I didn't appreciate his wisdom at the time, just wanted to get away quickly before the sea came rushing back!

[Steph Hen]

I also read that the biomass of animals in uk is about the same as it was couple thousand years ago, just now they are domestic not wild animals.

[Fleecewife]

However, the main point I want to make is that these animals have valuable secondary ‘crops’ including skins from cattle and wool and skins from sheep.
Sheep’s wool in particular is surely the most eco friendly fibre around. If we cut back on the number of sheep bred, then wool will become expensive, perhaps on a par with the inevitable increases in costs of fibre made from fossil fuels. The worst culprit for high fossil fuel inputs and water usage is cotton. This crop is the greediest in the world, using enormous amounts of water, fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides in its cultivation, and on top of that are all the processing environmental costs too. People think of lovely natural cotton, but in fact its environmental cost is extreme.

I am positive that wool is the key to low impact fibre production for the future. Chemical and water inputs during cultivation are minimal, and all water used in cleaning the wool prior to processing can be cleaned and returned safely to the environment or reused - and of course the lanolin filtered off is yet another useful product.
Once turned into clothing, washing of woollen products can be less frequent, and the clothing, bed covers, furnishings etc will last far longer than fabrics produced from fossil fuel sources.
When we consider the methane output from these animals we should also take into account bigtime the production of wool, so food and clothing from one animal and one space - quite a bargain.

So, apart from Porterlauren's worries about her bald sheep (don't worry, this isn't going to happen overnight) what do you think about the main point I was making in my OP, that the enormous benefits of wool should be included in the calculations made for eco impact of sheep ?

[Marches Farmer]

Quite - a byproduct of a crop that utilises otherwise unproductive grassland too poor for cattle and too shallow to grow a crop.

[mowhaugh]

Agree re the wool. The SAC are also investigating this, they bought bullocks from my dad for that purpose, haven't heard any reports back yet, though.