• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

News from a "PACKER BACKER"

S

sw

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,373
Hey Haymaker, this time don't start calling me names for posting something that somebody else wrote or said, it makes you look bad.

LA Times editorializes its "beef" with global warming
October 18, 2007



On Monday, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times ran a lengthy editorial titled, "Killer Cow Emissions: Livestock are a leading source of greenhouse gas. Why isn't anyone raising a stink?" (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-methane15oct15,0,7911841.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials). The article argued that the methane produced by livestock, as well as carbon dioxide from growing cattle feed, are major contributors to global warming and cited the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report that identified livestock as "one of the two or three top contributors to the world's most serious environmental problems, including water pollution and species loss."

In addition, the editorial claimed legislators are scared to oppose the beef industry: "It is extremely hazardous for politicians to take on the U.S. beef industry, a lesson learned by Sen. George McGovern in the late 1970s," and "beyond the dangers of taking on the beef bloc, legislating food choices is an unpopular and nearly impossible task."

The Times urges consumers to "do their part" by eating less red meat, arguing that "cutting out meat would do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than trading in a gas guzzler for a hybrid car" and suggests the Americans should eat no more than 2 ounces of meat from ruminant animals daily. And to help bolster the argument, the editorial attacks beef's nutrition profile, stating that "the government should not only get out of the business of promoting unhealthful and environmentally destructive foods, it should be actively discouraging them."

Sparked by the LA Times, Rocky Mountain News (Colorado) columnist Vincent Carroll wrote an opinion piece that ran yesterday on a similar subject, but with a different take (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/onpoint/archives/2007/10/carroll_dont_have_a_cow_man.html). Although Carroll's "Don't have a cow, man" repeats a lot of the negative language and misinformation from the LA Times, he ultimately warns against the dangers of allowing global warming to outrank every other consideration, including personal freedom:



"Global warming is quickly becoming the one-stop shop for almost every variety of social engineer and closet authoritarian who hankers to boss the rest of us around. Those who want to dictate where Americans live, including the size of their houses and lots, what they drive or whether they drive, and even what they eat, need only link their goal to the campaign against global warming to infuse it with moral force."



NCBA worked with the California Beef Council and Cattlemen's Association to identify several third parties to respond to the LA Times editorial. Letters to the editor will be sent from a local producer, a nutrition expert from the state and a member of the Animal Health Network located in California. In addition, other long term tactics are being planned to combat this sort of editorial coverage in the future.



Because of the editorial leadership role the LA Times plays in this country, other newspapers may begin running editorials exploring the same issues – either from a positive or negative point of view. Please watch for these articles in your local papers. The best response to similar articles would be from a producer or a third-party expert in your state. Key messages, fact sheets and template response letters addressing the issues raised in this article are available on the State Extranet Resource at http://extranet.beef.org > Issues & Media Response > Environment.



Funded by The Beef Checkoff.
 
sw said:
Hey
Haymaker, this time don't start calling me names
Click to expand...
for posting something that somebody else wrote or said, it makes you look bad.

LA Times editorializes its "beef" with global warming
October 18, 2007



On Monday, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times ran a lengthy editorial titled, "Killer Cow Emissions: Livestock are a leading source of greenhouse gas. Why isn't anyone raising a stink?" (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-methane15oct15,0,7911841.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials). The article argued that the methane produced by livestock, as well as carbon dioxide from growing cattle feed, are major contributors to global warming and cited the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report that identified livestock as "one of the two or three top contributors to the world's most serious environmental problems, including water pollution and species loss."

In addition, the editorial claimed legislators are scared to oppose the beef industry: "It is extremely hazardous for politicians to take on the U.S. beef industry, a lesson learned by Sen. George McGovern in the late 1970s," and "beyond the dangers of taking on the beef bloc, legislating food choices is an unpopular and nearly impossible task."

The Times urges consumers to "do their part" by eating less red meat, arguing that "cutting out meat would do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than trading in a gas guzzler for a hybrid car" and suggests the Americans should eat no more than 2 ounces of meat from ruminant animals daily. And to help bolster the argument, the editorial attacks beef's nutrition profile, stating that "the government should not only get out of the business of promoting unhealthful and environmentally destructive foods, it should be actively discouraging them."

Sparked by the LA Times, Rocky Mountain News (Colorado) columnist Vincent Carroll wrote an opinion piece that ran yesterday on a similar subject, but with a different take (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/onpoint/archives/2007/10/carroll_dont_have_a_cow_man.html). Although Carroll's "Don't have a cow, man" repeats a lot of the negative language and misinformation from the LA Times, he ultimately warns against the dangers of allowing global warming to outrank every other consideration, including personal freedom:



"Global warming is quickly becoming the one-stop shop for almost every variety of social engineer and closet authoritarian who hankers to boss the rest of us around. Those who want to dictate where Americans live, including the size of their houses and lots, what they drive or whether they drive, and even what they eat, need only link their goal to the campaign against global warming to infuse it with moral force."



NCBA worked with the California Beef Council and Cattlemen's Association to identify several third parties to respond to the LA Times editorial. Letters to the editor will be sent from a local producer, a nutrition expert from the state and a member of the Animal Health Network located in California. In addition, other long term tactics are being planned to combat this sort of editorial coverage in the future.



Because of the editorial leadership role the LA Times plays in this country, other newspapers may begin running editorials exploring the same issues – either from a positive or negative point of view. Please watch for these articles in your local papers. The best response to similar articles would be from a producer or a third-party expert in your state. Key messages, fact sheets and template response letters addressing the issues raised in this article are available on the State Extranet Resource at http://extranet.beef.org > Issues & Media Response > Environment.



Funded by The Beef Checkoff.
Click to expand...

sw,dont confuse my stating facts as name calling,its makes you look bad.
I believe the fact you admitt to being a packer/backer sez it all...........good luck
 
'From article' said:
Livestock are a leading source of greenhouse gases. Why isn't anyone raising a stink?

October 15, 2007


It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector,...
Click to expand...
:agree:

But, let's break down the statement...

Livestock have more effect on "global warming than the entire world transportation sector".

Animal emissions have been part of the global climate since the beginning of animals.

Global climate change has happened since the beginning of the planet.

If animal emissions have such a huge effect on the climate (global warming), why couldn't dinosaur emissions prevent the Ice Age??????????????? (And those were some very big emissions) :shock: :shock: :o

Now back to complete the circle....It's claimed that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming! It's claimed that livestock contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector. We just proved that animal emissions don't have the ability to effect climate change...so the entire transportation sector can't effect climate change(if the above statement is true)!!!!!!!!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 
The forage that cattle eat tie up carbon. If the cattle didn't eat it, the carbon would still be set free by simple degradation (rotting, composting, etc.) by trillions of bacteria, fungi, and other small "beings"

The only way this would not happen is if the plant matter were trapped, as in the case of peat which turns to coal, or carbon matter in the oceans (these formed our great carbon deposits--lime and other minerals and our fossil fuels).

The argument with fossil fuels is that we are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that was tied up over millions of years and this is what may cause global warming. It is taking fossil fuels that were previously tied up in the ground and in minerals back into the atmosphere.

This sounds more like an argument the fossil fuel industry would make than anyone else.

Mind you, I am not making the case that I like cattle farts. The world is not perfect you know. The cattle are taking forage from many sources, using and using rumen bacteria to obtain energy and nitrogen--the essentials for making meat on a carcass. The process does emit "global warming elements" but is it more than if the forage was left on the ground? The argument would have to be made that the forage not being harvested by cattle would create less gases than what comes out of cattle.

A great argument can be made that a forage ecosystem with cattle does end up with more carbon being captured in the ground. Anyone with a working knowledge of the land knows that this in fact does happen more with a cattle system than with intensive agriculture. The soil contains more organic (carbon) matter in a pasture setting than in a soybean field under current growing practices, thus tying up more carbon.

RM, I am told by my intensive grazing management friends (and as I have experienced) that the soil retains more organic material than even non grass fed systems. I have seen myself where dung beetles will, within a 36 hour period, put more of that manure in the ground than with systems where ranchers try to use worming medicine to control internal parasites. These medicines will kill a dung beetle population.
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
I agree with most of what you said Tex . But it's the belching not the farts that are the problem. :lol:
Click to expand...

I know, BMR. I enjoy being around cattle when they are content and chewing their cud. I just used the "farts" thing because it seems that is what most lay people would relate to.

It is the rumen, the reticulem the omasen and abomason (spelling probably not correct) that allows ruminants to use bacteria to break down otherwise undigestible matter into a nice steak. The cows don't break this down, they only facilitate the process. It is the bacteria. Cattle get their nourishment mostly from the action of these bacteria on forage that they help along with a great intestinal environment. If the bacteria in the digestive tract emit the same amount of global warming gases as if the forage was on the ground is the question.

Cows just speed up the process of the bacteria for their own benefit. Ultimately, we are the beneficiaries.
 
Tex said:
The forage that cattle eat tie up carbon. If the cattle didn't eat it, the carbon would still be set free by simple degradation (rotting, composting, etc.) by trillions of bacteria, fungi, and other small "beings"
Click to expand...

The dirty little secret that the environmental wackos don't tell us is that the precious, revered rainforest is a NET PRODUCER OF GREEN HOUSE GASES because of this!!!!

Roy Spencer, a NASA climatologist at U. of Al at Huntsville, believes that rainfall is the major factor of global temperature. If he is correct, then more clouds and more rainfall is needed to stop global warming. What is needed to produce more clouds??????? Pollution particles for water vapor to attach! More pollution is the solution to global warming?????????

Think back to an event that most of us can remember...the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Massive amounts of particles in the atmosphere produced a cooler and wetter that normal summer! What caused the Ice Age? Massive amounts of volcanic activity!!! Even dinosaur farts couldn't stop the climate cooling!!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 
RM, I believe you are right about the rainfall. There is evidence that deforestation (places studied in the highlands of Ethiopia, and elsewhere) that the forests do provide huge amounts of water into the atmosphere and this water does help to increase rainfall.

It will be interesting to see what happens to rain fall when Brazil burns their forests for soybeans.

We experienced something similar in the U.S. when we had the dustbowl.

There was a huge federal effort to increase the trees in the dust bowl area (where my dad grew up---high plains) to keep the water cycle going and prevent future dust bowls. The lack of plants on the ground (from agricultural practices) allowed the dust to be moved in massive amounts.

I remember seeing one while very young. We were traveling to my grandparent's house and up ahead we saw a huge red horizon. There was a definite top to the red air above which was blue sky. When we drove through it, it was really, really dusty and red. It was surreal.

I can always relate when I read about it in novels--some of John Steinbeck's stories and elsewhere.

Now our troops in Iraq have experienced the same.
 
Thinking about this article a little further.....

We have a big push in our country to go to biofuels as a source of our energy supplies. The enviromentalist argument for biofuels is that biofuels are carbon neutral and as such are better for the environment.

I don't know a whole lot about switchgrass, as it is not a forage I am familiar with, but following RM's line of thinking and the points brought up in the article, shouldn't we be looking to nature to find our solutions? By the way, nature is the place we get the building blocks for our pharmecutical industry (where is the spell checker for this forum?).

With that line of thought, shouldn't the researchers start with putting cattle on switchgrass and then finding out which bacteria create gas out of it in cattle?

The funny thing is, when these bacteria and their enzymes are found, the environmentalists will praise this as a "neutral" greenhouse gas source of energy. This will more than likely come from the same flora that is used by the cow to make energy into food. Harvesting switchgrass for fuel will be touted as an environmental success.

Personally, I know as a human, I can do without a little bottled energy, but I can't live without food.

At any rate, it shows how this information can be misused for political purposes (or vegan purposes).

BMR, do you have switchgrass where you live, and are cattle eating it? Do you see evidence of switchgrass being eaten in cow patties?

If so, the answer might be found on the bottom of your boot.

Your boot in the right place, therefore, might do some good to whoever wrote this article---but I am not advocating violence here :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .

Some people just need a boot in the pants to get things right. :D
 
The animal welfare lobby has been banging this drum for many years, and now seem to be gaining converts. Tex has pretty much said it all, I can only add that in the context of the part of Africa I come from, the number of wild ruminants recorded in the late 1800's far outnumbered the present day domestic ruminant poulation, I believe the same would apply to the American prairies if any reliable counts of bison and antelope are available. Over the years, we have had further restrictions on livestock numbers permitted as the grazing deteriorated due to "overgrazing" the advent of short duration grazing began the reversal of this problem, and from this success, the modern day holistic management has evolved and is still evolving as we learn more about our environment, and one crucial piece of the land management, is the positive effects of the correctly managed grazing animal.
 
Between the 'Mother Earth Worship' cult, and the 'Vegan' sect of the same cult, they sure do murder a lot of 'trees' (paper) in order to spiel their propaganda in attempts to convert non-believers to their religion!

How arrogant need we be to believe mere people can ruin the environment by competing with natural forces of volcanic activity, and wind and water erosion, to name just a couple?

Sure, it's nice to see cities and waterways cleaned of industrial and sewage polution, yet we don't absolutely know that those were not being cleansed (if too slowly for our human senses to approve) from the earth by natural forces.

mrj
 

Latest posts

Back
Top