Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hi Kirk, I am not sure were your 3000 acres are but here in BC, Canada, you would have to have a farm inspected by certified organic Verification people not only for fertilizer but for pesticides and herbicides and the oats you feed your chickens would have to be certified as organic as well plus many other conditions such as no drugs or antibiotics. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:48:03 -0800 (PST) We ran 3000 acres. A small operation. My stepdads brother ran the slaughterhouse and meatmarket in town. The only grain they got was a scoop of feed so their head was down so you could put the rifle against the back of their skull. I am familiar with the business. As for our chickens they got oats and wheat. We didnt fertilize so I guess it was organic. Old hens have fat but fryers are lean meat. As for hog and chicken farm pollution it is a travesty and the monied such as Tyson get away with it because of who they are and who they know. The biggest dead zone that I actually saw the satellite photos of was the spraying in Nam. The chemical companies assured the military the die off would be in river plumes maybe as far as 50 miles. When the die off was larger than Nam itself spraying was stopped. Nothing has changed. Except we are the Vietnamese now courtesy of Monsanto and others. Kirk Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. Also, there are many dead zones now in our oceans were fish can not survive and the cause is run off from factory cattle and hog farms. There are lots of scientific studies done on this. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) There are so many assumptions made in these analysis I fail to get excited. When man was chipping flint and buffalo herds took a day to run past a point how much methane was there? There was more forest too and rotting vegetation and termites. As for fertilizer for feed that means feedlots and most beef in the west is sold from open range. Grass one day then a train ride to swift and armour. No feed lot involved. The biggest feed lot operator I know ships all his meat to Japan. American consumers dont want to pay that much. For every cow I see on a lot I see 10 or more on grass. Terry Dyck wrote: Hi Thomas, Re stats quoted; it's too bad you couldn't bring up the Grist mag. report but there is another report different than the United Nations report you put in this reply. The U.N. report is dated Dec. 11, 2006. The title is -- Cow emissions more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars. This is a 400 page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. This is the reoport that claims the 18% figure of green house gases. It takes into consideration that burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing of vegetation for grazing - produces 9 % of all emissions of CO2. An earlier report came out on Nov. 29, 2006. Hope this helps you to verify my stats. Terry Dyck From: Thomas Kelly Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:01:32 -0500 Terry, Unable to find the information you referred to at Grist Magazine's web site, I went to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's site and found a book called Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/Lxehtml/tech/index.htm In Chapter 5 is a section dealing with GHG emissions due to livestock I suspect this may be where the quote attributed to the United Nations Food an Agriculture Organization (regarding GHG emissions from livestock) came from. But where you said They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37% methane and 65% nitrous oxide. Those are world totals. The book says: (Chapter 5 Beyond Production Systems; Livestock and greenhouse gases) As shown, livestock and manure management contribute about 16
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Was in Montana. I live in Oregon now.Just enough land to raise my own. Have friends who are still struggling to make a living in agriculture though. Seems distribution gets the chips. Kirk Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk, I am not sure were your 3000 acres are but here in BC, Canada, you would have to have a farm inspected by certified organic Verification people not only for fertilizer but for pesticides and herbicides and the oats you feed your chickens would have to be certified as organic as well plus many other conditions such as no drugs or antibiotics. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:48:03 -0800 (PST) We ran 3000 acres. A small operation. My stepdads brother ran the slaughterhouse and meatmarket in town. The only grain they got was a scoop of feed so their head was down so you could put the rifle against the back of their skull. I am familiar with the business. As for our chickens they got oats and wheat. We didnt fertilize so I guess it was organic. Old hens have fat but fryers are lean meat. As for hog and chicken farm pollution it is a travesty and the monied such as Tyson get away with it because of who they are and who they know. The biggest dead zone that I actually saw the satellite photos of was the spraying in Nam. The chemical companies assured the military the die off would be in river plumes maybe as far as 50 miles. When the die off was larger than Nam itself spraying was stopped. Nothing has changed. Except we are the Vietnamese now courtesy of Monsanto and others. Kirk Terry Dyck wrote: Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. Also, there are many dead zones now in our oceans were fish can not survive and the cause is run off from factory cattle and hog farms. There are lots of scientific studies done on this. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) There are so many assumptions made in these analysis I fail to get excited. When man was chipping flint and buffalo herds took a day to run past a point how much methane was there? There was more forest too and rotting vegetation and termites. As for fertilizer for feed that means feedlots and most beef in the west is sold from open range. Grass one day then a train ride to swift and armour. No feed lot involved. The biggest feed lot operator I know ships all his meat to Japan. American consumers dont want to pay that much. For every cow I see on a lot I see 10 or more on grass. Terry Dyck wrote: Hi Thomas, Re stats quoted; it's too bad you couldn't bring up the Grist mag. report but there is another report different than the United Nations report you put in this reply. The U.N. report is dated Dec. 11, 2006. The title is -- Cow emissions more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars. This is a 400 page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. This is the reoport that claims the 18% figure of green house gases. It takes into consideration that burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing of vegetation for grazing - produces 9 % of all emissions of CO2. An earlier report came out on Nov. 29, 2006. Hope this helps you to verify my stats. Terry Dyck From: Thomas Kelly Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:01:32 -0500 Terry, Unable to find the information you referred to at Grist Magazine's web site, I went to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's site and found a book called Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/Lxehtml/tech/index.htm In Chapter 5 is a section dealing with GHG emissions due to livestock I suspect this may be where the quote attributed to the United Nations Food an Agriculture Organization (regarding GHG emissions from livestock) came from. But where you said They also mentioned that livestock
Re: [Biofuel] Cheese Whey to Ethanol
What I need to produce this sugar? From:"NV Dhana" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:Re: [Biofuel] Cheese Whey to EthanolDate:Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:54:50 -0400To Saludos, Why you want to ferment whey to ethanol when you can makeTagatose sugar that is more lucrative fron whey. From: "Dimas Ramirez" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Cheese Whey to Ethanol Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:56:32 + I have a waste of 20,000 liters of cheese whey every day. I want to convert it to ethanol, but a can not find Kluyveromyces Fragilis to break the lactose. Anybody knows about it or another method to make it happens? Saludos! Dimas___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month. Intro*Terms ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hi Kirk, I am not sure were your 3000 acres are but here in BC, Canada, you would have to have a farm inspected by certified organic Verification people not only for fertilizer but for pesticides and herbicides and the oats you feed your chickens would have to be certified as organic as well plus many other conditions such as no drugs or antibiotics. To what avail Terry? To get a label so WalMart can sell it for a better margin a thousand miles away? LOL! Keith Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:48:03 -0800 (PST) We ran 3000 acres. A small operation. My stepdads brother ran the slaughterhouse and meatmarket in town. The only grain they got was a scoop of feed so their head was down so you could put the rifle against the back of their skull. I am familiar with the business. As for our chickens they got oats and wheat. We didnt fertilize so I guess it was organic. Old hens have fat but fryers are lean meat. As for hog and chicken farm pollution it is a travesty and the monied such as Tyson get away with it because of who they are and who they know. The biggest dead zone that I actually saw the satellite photos of was the spraying in Nam. The chemical companies assured the military the die off would be in river plumes maybe as far as 50 miles. When the die off was larger than Nam itself spraying was stopped. Nothing has changed. Except we are the Vietnamese now courtesy of Monsanto and others. Kirk Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. Also, there are many dead zones now in our oceans were fish can not survive and the cause is run off from factory cattle and hog farms. There are lots of scientific studies done on this. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) There are so many assumptions made in these analysis I fail to get excited. When man was chipping flint and buffalo herds took a day to run past a point how much methane was there? There was more forest too and rotting vegetation and termites. As for fertilizer for feed that means feedlots and most beef in the west is sold from open range. Grass one day then a train ride to swift and armour. No feed lot involved. The biggest feed lot operator I know ships all his meat to Japan. American consumers dont want to pay that much. For every cow I see on a lot I see 10 or more on grass. snip ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hello Terry Hi Keith, I agree with you that range fed organic chicken is healthier and better but consumers are very fussy. When I was involved with Organic food sales, appearance seemed to be more important than nutrition. If a leaf of an organically grown green vegetable had a blemish on it some people would not buy it even though it was was healthier than a perfect shaped leaf of some pesticide grown vegetable. Skinny chicken could fall into this consumer driven, appearance is everything mentallity. Terry Dyck I think you miss the point a bit, or the main one anyway. We've been quite deeply involved in this in Japan (not only Japan), along with just about everything else to do with organics, and this myth of the very fussy consumer is something you hear all the time here, not just with organics, and not just with food. I'm sure it must be more severe here than the US, the Japanese housewife is supposed to be notoriously fussy anyway. Some of them sure are, but when you have a closer look all you see is exceptions. In the various forms of CSAs and local markets, box deals, delivery rounds and so on, it doesn't seem to be much in evidence. I think a lot of dumb stuff gets perpetrated under cover of the fussiness of the Japanese housewife, if indeed there is such a stereotypical creature as the Japanese housewife anyway. All part of the consumerist message, and not just here.. I don't think consumerism has a lot to do with what organic food truly is. When you remove cheap oil from consumerism, what's left? Anyway: consumers are very fussy. When I was involved with Organic food sales, appearance seemed to be more important than nutrition. If a leaf of an organically grown green vegetable had a blemish on it some people would not buy it even though it was was healthier than a perfect shaped leaf of some pesticide grown vegetable. Skinny chicken could fall into this consumer driven, appearance is everything mentallity. Who said so? Did fussy consumers themselves actually tell you these things, or was it just the marketing men who predicted they would? Did you actually see a skinny organic chicken? I mean a chicken raised on well-managed organic pasture and homegrown feed, but it was skinny? We got a bunch of mixed day-old chicks last June, a mix of Thai and two local breeds, and until they were big enough to join the rest of the flock we rotated them in a bamboo pen (tractor) around the not-very-good pasture we had here last year, along with stuff from the vegetable garden and whatever we had, and not much grain. They followed a bunch of goslings which used the bamboo pen a month earlier, and a bunch of Muscovy ducklings a month later, so you wouldn't say there was very much to go round, only just in fact. Now it's different, but we were still building the soil then, and the birds were part of the building process, it was hard to stay ahead of them. There were 11 cocks among them, which we slaughtered when they were big enough. Very fine birds! They were full of life and energy and health, bright-eyed, shining feathers, quick and alert, a real pleasure to see. They were very meaty, one bird made nine or 10 helpings, a whole leg was too much for one person, a whole breast only if you were greedy. Normal amount of fat for a healthy creature, not obese, not skinny either. Sorry, I don't believe in your skinny organic chicken, it's just a myth, like the myth that livestock are a global warming culprit and the myth that veganism is the only sustainable option, or that it's a sustainable option at all. Best Keith From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:50:06 +0900 Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. What nonsense! Sorry, not you Terry, the requirement's nonsense. Pasture-raised chickens are not skinny, very healthy chickens are also not skinny, and I very much doubt that organic food customers complain loudly and feel badly done by when they buy very healthy chickens that taste great BUT they haven't been pumped up with loads of maize so they're not obese. I think very many real organic farmers have simply dumped the label and got on with their local markets where
[Biofuel] Cal's biofuel deal challenged on campus
Also: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/07/BUGCHOGF0D1.DTL San Francisco Chronicle, March 7 2007 The promise and perils of tech transfer Universities mull industry partnerships http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=02-06-07storyID=26282 Berkeley Daily Planet, 6 Feb 2007 News Analysis: UC's Biotech Benefactors: The Power of Big Finance and Bad Ideas By Miguel A. Altieri and Eric Holt-Gimenez http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=23290 The Daily Californian Two Arrests in Protest Over Biofuels Deal Students Don Lab Coats, Spill Mock Oil in Rally Against BP Contract Friday, March 2, 2007 http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=03-06-07storyID=26481 Berkeley Daily Planet News Analysis: GMO Research Dominates BP-UC Partnership http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=03-02-07storyID=26451 Berkeley Daily Planet Week of Arrests, Protests Challenges UC/BP Accord (03-02-07) http://www.counterpunch.org/scherr02082007.html Judith Scherr: BP Beds Down with Berkeley Oil Company's University Liaison Raises Questions February 8, 2007 http://www.mindfully.org/GE/The-Kept-UniversityMar00.htm The Kept University Atlantic Monthly v.285, n.3 Mar00 --- http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/08/MNGCROHIOV1.DTL San Francisco Chronicle (page A - 1), March 8, 2007 Cal's biofuel deal challenged on campus Critics say energy alliance with oil giant BP endangers school's integrity, independence Rick DelVecchio, Chronicle Staff Writer Andrew Paul Gutierrez, a 67-year-old professor of ecosystems science in UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources, has a word for those who believe human ingenuity and productivity are boundless. He calls them cornucopians. He thinks cornucopians are misguided and prone to taking big risks that can backfire. That's one of the reasons he is upset that the university where he has spent his entire academic life is joining with oil giant BP in a $500 million, 10-year program to discover how to mass-produce clean, safe transportation fuels -- such as ethanol -- from biomass in an environmentally safe and cost-effective way. The Energy Biosciences Institute is to create high-tech energy farms as productive as oil fields but without the carbon waste that adds to climate change. The harvests would be processed into sugar-based fuels for filling the gas tanks of vehicles. Institute scientists will be unified and propelled by a common purpose to solve a global problem of great magnitude and urgency, according to the proposal written by a UC Berkeley-led team and accepted by BP. The BP deal has been presented as an environmental call to arms, but Gutierrez is among a loose-knit group of faculty members and students not falling in line. The critics don't agree on what they disagree about but share a fervor that contrasts with the administration's self-confidence at landing history's richest academic-industry research partnership. The heretics fall into three camps: those who question the science program, those who feel the deal taints the university's independence, and those who fear it conflicts with UC Berkeley's time-honored collegial process for hiring and promoting faculty. They're few in number on a faculty of more than 1,500 but have been so persistent since the deal's announcement five weeks ago, that time had to be set aside for everyone to speak. That time is from 4 to 6 p.m. today at a campus forum sponsored by Cal's Academic Senate. These are arguments that have to be taken seriously, said Bill Drummond, a journalism professor who is chairman of the Academic Senate. To give the sponsors of the BP deal their due, supporters say, leaders of the giant petroleum company are considering the issue of global warming in broad ecological and socioeconomic terms. No previous effort has even attempted such a comprehensive approach. I've met a bunch of the VPs at BP, said Chris Somerville, a Stanford professor who is the top candidate for the Energy Biosciences Institute's top job. They're people like you and me. They're trying to do the right thing. They want the right thing for their children and grandchildren. Gutierrez, interviewed at his office in Mulford Hall, said he believes it's important to pursue alternative fuels but was hard put to find anything to cheer him up about the BP deal's approach. You'd think this proposal is exactly what we needed because it's promising a lot to reduce greenhouse gases, he said. The problem is, how do you separate the hype from the facts? Another reason he's upset is he thinks the deal marks a step backward for the university's intellectual independence. He criticized the administration for entering into a relationship in which 50 corporate researchers will work hand in hand with university scientists. Gutierrez said partnerships between individual faculty members and corporate sponsors have been common during his career,
[Biofuel] new US Radiation Event Medical Management website
BODY { MARGIN-TOP: 20px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 50px; COLOR:
#00; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica }
BODY { MARGIN-TOP: 20px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 50px; COLOR:
#00; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica }http://remm.nlm.gov/
new US Department of Health and Human Services Radiation Event Medical
Management website
-
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58
AM
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. Also, there are many dead zones now in our oceans were fish can not survive and the cause is run off from factory cattle and hog farms. There are lots of scientific studies done on this. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) There are so many assumptions made in these analysis I fail to get excited. When man was chipping flint and buffalo herds took a day to run past a point how much methane was there? There was more forest too and rotting vegetation and termites. As for fertilizer for feed that means feedlots and most beef in the west is sold from open range. Grass one day then a train ride to swift and armour. No feed lot involved. The biggest feed lot operator I know ships all his meat to Japan. American consumers dont want to pay that much. For every cow I see on a lot I see 10 or more on grass. Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Thomas, Re stats quoted; it's too bad you couldn't bring up the Grist mag. report but there is another report different than the United Nations report you put in this reply. The U.N. report is dated Dec. 11, 2006. The title is -- Cow emissions more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars. This is a 400 page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. This is the reoport that claims the 18% figure of green house gases. It takes into consideration that burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing of vegetation for grazing - produces 9 % of all emissions of CO2. An earlier report came out on Nov. 29, 2006. Hope this helps you to verify my stats. Terry Dyck From: Thomas Kelly Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:01:32 -0500 Terry, Unable to find the information you referred to at Grist Magazine's web site, I went to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's site and found a book called Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/Lxehtml/tech/index.htm In Chapter 5 is a section dealing with GHG emissions due to livestock I suspect this may be where the quote attributed to the United Nations Food an Agriculture Organization (regarding GHG emissions from livestock) came from. But where you said They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37% methane and 65% nitrous oxide. Those are world totals. The book says: (Chapter 5 Beyond Production Systems; Livestock and greenhouse gases) As shown, livestock and manure management contribute about 16 percent of total annual production of 550 million tons. Source: USEPA, 1995. Methane emission (NOT the 37% you quote) Regarding Nitrous Oxides and livestock: Nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous oxide is another greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. Total N2O emissions have been estimated by Bouwman (1995) at 13.6 TG N2O per year, which exceeds the stratospheric loss of 10.5 TG N2O per year by an atmospheric increase of 3.1 TG N2O per year. Animal manure contributes about 1.0 TG N2O per year to total emissions. Indirectly, livestock is associated with N2O emissions from grasslands and, through their concentrate feed requirements, with emissions from arable land and N-fertilizer use. 1 TG of the 13.6 TG total N2O emissions is 7.4%. This is far short of the 65% you quoted. The N2O emissions from livestock themselves (denitrifying bacteria acting on nitrogen in the manure) is part of the normal cycling of nitrogen. The vast majority of N2O emissions is the result of the interaction of the O2 and N2 in air at high temperatures characteristic of internal combustion engines and furnaces. Of course a portion of the overall emissions is due to transport of grain and of livestock as well as production of fertilizer and pesticides used in industrial livestock systems. This is a good reason to favor local, mixed farming systems. As for CO2 there is no mention of % CO2 attributed to livestock. There was a consideration of burning Savanna grassland: Burning of savanna
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. What nonsense! Sorry, not you Terry, the requirement's nonsense. Pasture-raised chickens are not skinny, very healthy chickens are also not skinny, and I very much doubt that organic food customers complain loudly and feel badly done by when they buy very healthy chickens that taste great BUT they haven't been pumped up with loads of maize so they're not obese. I think very many real organic farmers have simply dumped the label and got on with their local markets where their customers know them and trust them and don't need a label, especially not a label that's pretty much designed for the food industry rather than for true organic farming. I've been following this development for some years now, from the sidelines mostly. There's yet another discussion about it at SANET at the moment (Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group), titled organic vs. local. Some classic comments from Sal (Don't panic eat organic): I pay a organic tax because I don't use anything. I have to fill out reports and pay the USDA saying I don't use anything while the USDA will not label GMOs ,pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers that kill life on the earth. Its all backwards. no good act goes unpunished. They say peace they mean war . they say war on poverty they mean war on the poor... support your local organic grower. Right - local every time. A US website has a map showing corporate ownership of the organic brands, quite an eye-opener. I'll try to dig it up if I get the time. Then there's this, from a previous message: The Fighting Global Warming at the Farmer's Market report is an interesting study of food miles and CO2 emissions: ... The CO2 emissions caused by transporting food locally is 0.118 kg, while the emissions caused by importing those exact same foods is 11kg. Over the course of a year, if you were to buy only locally produced food, the associated CO2 emissions would be .006316 tonnes. If instead you were to buy only imported foods like those studied here, the associated CO2 emissions would be .573 tonnes. Imported food releases 90 times as much carbon as locally grown food. As with food miles, so with fuel miles, they're closely related issues. Fighting Global Warming at the Farmer's Market: http://www.foodshare.net/resource/files/ACF230.pdf And, er, this (a harbinger): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg68393.html [Biofuel] Air-freighted food may lose organic label 30 Jan 2007 I don't think the organicorps will like that much. Best Keith Also, there are many dead zones now in our oceans were fish can not survive and the cause is run off from factory cattle and hog farms. There are lots of scientific studies done on this. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) There are so many assumptions made in these analysis I fail to get excited. When man was chipping flint and buffalo herds took a day to run past a point how much methane was there? There was more forest too and rotting vegetation and termites. As for fertilizer for feed that means feedlots and most beef in the west is sold from open range. Grass one day then a train ride to swift and armour. No feed lot involved. The biggest feed lot operator I know ships all his meat to Japan. American consumers dont want to pay that much. For every cow I see on a lot I see 10 or more on grass. Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Thomas, Re stats quoted; it's too bad you couldn't bring up the Grist mag. report but there is another report different than the United Nations report you put in this reply. The U.N. report is dated Dec. 11, 2006. The title is -- Cow emissions more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars. This is a 400 page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. This is the reoport that claims the 18% figure of green house gases. It takes into consideration that burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing of vegetation for grazing - produces 9 % of all emissions of CO2. An earlier report came out on Nov. 29, 2006. Hope this helps you
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
Hi Keith, I agree with you that range fed organic chicken is healthier and better but consumers are very fussy. When I was involved with Organic food sales, appearance seemed to be more important than nutrition. If a leaf of an organically grown green vegetable had a blemish on it some people would not buy it even though it was was healthier than a perfect shaped leaf of some pesticide grown vegetable. Skinny chicken could fall into this consumer driven, appearance is everything mentallity. Terry Dyck From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:50:06 +0900 Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. What nonsense! Sorry, not you Terry, the requirement's nonsense. Pasture-raised chickens are not skinny, very healthy chickens are also not skinny, and I very much doubt that organic food customers complain loudly and feel badly done by when they buy very healthy chickens that taste great BUT they haven't been pumped up with loads of maize so they're not obese. I think very many real organic farmers have simply dumped the label and got on with their local markets where their customers know them and trust them and don't need a label, especially not a label that's pretty much designed for the food industry rather than for true organic farming. I've been following this development for some years now, from the sidelines mostly. There's yet another discussion about it at SANET at the moment (Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group), titled organic vs. local. Some classic comments from Sal (Don't panic eat organic): I pay a organic tax because I don't use anything. I have to fill out reports and pay the USDA saying I don't use anything while the USDA will not label GMOs ,pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers that kill life on the earth. Its all backwards. no good act goes unpunished. They say peace they mean war . they say war on poverty they mean war on the poor... support your local organic grower. Right - local every time. A US website has a map showing corporate ownership of the organic brands, quite an eye-opener. I'll try to dig it up if I get the time. Then there's this, from a previous message: The Fighting Global Warming at the Farmer's Market report is an interesting study of food miles and CO2 emissions: ... The CO2 emissions caused by transporting food locally is 0.118 kg, while the emissions caused by importing those exact same foods is 11kg. Over the course of a year, if you were to buy only locally produced food, the associated CO2 emissions would be .006316 tonnes. If instead you were to buy only imported foods like those studied here, the associated CO2 emissions would be .573 tonnes. Imported food releases 90 times as much carbon as locally grown food. As with food miles, so with fuel miles, they're closely related issues. Fighting Global Warming at the Farmer's Market: http://www.foodshare.net/resource/files/ACF230.pdf And, er, this (a harbinger): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg68393.html [Biofuel] Air-freighted food may lose organic label 30 Jan 2007 I don't think the organicorps will like that much. Best Keith Also, there are many dead zones now in our oceans were fish can not survive and the cause is run off from factory cattle and hog farms. There are lots of scientific studies done on this. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) There are so many assumptions made in these analysis I fail to get excited. When man was chipping flint and buffalo herds took a day to run past a point how much methane was there? There was more forest too and rotting vegetation and termites. As for fertilizer for feed that means feedlots and most beef in the west is sold from open range. Grass one day then a train ride to swift and armour. No feed lot involved. The biggest feed lot operator I know ships all his meat to Japan. American consumers dont want to pay that much. For every cow I see on a lot I see 10 or more on grass. Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Thomas, Re stats quoted; it's too
Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
We ran 3000 acres. A small operation. My stepdads brother ran the slaughterhouse and meatmarket in town. The only grain they got was a scoop of feed so their head was down so you could put the rifle against the back of their skull. I am familiar with the business. As for our chickens they got oats and wheat. We didnt fertilize so I guess it was organic. Old hens have fat but fryers are lean meat. As for hog and chicken farm pollution it is a travesty and the monied such as Tyson get away with it because of who they are and who they know. The biggest dead zone that I actually saw the satellite photos of was the spraying in Nam. The chemical companies assured the military the die off would be in river plumes maybe as far as 50 miles. When the die off was larger than Nam itself spraying was stopped. Nothing has changed. Except we are the Vietnamese now courtesy of Monsanto and others. Kirk Terry Dyck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kirk, Even the so called grass fed cows spend their last days on special feed lots to fatten them up. When I was involved with a certification of organic farming organization I approached a chicken farmer who always complained that he couldn't go completely organic because the cost of organic feed was too high. I suggested that he could just let the chickens eat like wild birds and he mentioned that that would be very healthy for the chickens but no one would buy the meat because the chickens would be too skinny. The farmers have to purchase or grow special grains that are certified organic and feed this to the chickens to produce more fat. Also, there are many dead zones now in our oceans were fish can not survive and the cause is run off from factory cattle and hog farms. There are lots of scientific studies done on this. Terry Dyck From: Kirk McLoren Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:36:39 -0800 (PST) There are so many assumptions made in these analysis I fail to get excited. When man was chipping flint and buffalo herds took a day to run past a point how much methane was there? There was more forest too and rotting vegetation and termites. As for fertilizer for feed that means feedlots and most beef in the west is sold from open range. Grass one day then a train ride to swift and armour. No feed lot involved. The biggest feed lot operator I know ships all his meat to Japan. American consumers dont want to pay that much. For every cow I see on a lot I see 10 or more on grass. Terry Dyck wrote: Hi Thomas, Re stats quoted; it's too bad you couldn't bring up the Grist mag. report but there is another report different than the United Nations report you put in this reply. The U.N. report is dated Dec. 11, 2006. The title is -- Cow emissions more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars. This is a 400 page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. This is the reoport that claims the 18% figure of green house gases. It takes into consideration that burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing of vegetation for grazing - produces 9 % of all emissions of CO2. An earlier report came out on Nov. 29, 2006. Hope this helps you to verify my stats. Terry Dyck From: Thomas Kelly Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:01:32 -0500 Terry, Unable to find the information you referred to at Grist Magazine's web site, I went to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's site and found a book called Livestock and the Environment: Finding a Balance. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/Lxehtml/tech/index.htm In Chapter 5 is a section dealing with GHG emissions due to livestock I suspect this may be where the quote attributed to the United Nations Food an Agriculture Organization (regarding GHG emissions from livestock) came from. But where you said They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37% methane and 65% nitrous oxide. Those are world totals. The book says: (Chapter 5 Beyond Production Systems; Livestock and greenhouse gases) As shown, livestock and manure management contribute about 16 percent of total annual production of 550 million tons. Source: USEPA, 1995. Methane emission (NOT the 37% you quote) Regarding Nitrous Oxides and livestock: Nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous oxide is another greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. Total N2O emissions have been estimated by Bouwman (1995) at 13.6 TG N2O per year, which exceeds the stratospheric loss of 10.5 TG N2O per year by an atmospheric increase of 3.1 TG N2O per year. Animal manure contributes about 1.0 TG N2O per year to total emissions. Indirectly, livestock is
[Biofuel] utility bill horror stories.
Not only oil companies are posting record profits Seems a loud and clear call for solar and other power at point of use. Kirk http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/03/10/news/news002.prt Readers share horror stories over utility bills By the JG/T-C [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following comments were collected from JG/T-C readers via e-mail: January electric power bill - $196.42 February bill - $396.02 JW Our latest bill was $243.09. The bill previous to that was $121.08. So, our bill doubled almost exactly. It wasnt as big of a jump as some people have had, but its certainly more than a $1 a day, and its a hardship for us. We are all electric, but now were looking at gas. JL, Charleston I am a single mother of two and live in a 2-bedroom apartment. My CIPS bill for January 2007 was $135 and my bill for February 2007 is $259. I have lived in my apartment for 8 years and have never had a bill this high. I keep my apartment at 70 degrees all the time, even though it is cold. I have very limited income and I dont understand why the bill has almost doubled. I dont know how people are going to be able to afford these rates. I hope something can be done about this outrageous increase. MS Our electric bills for the month of January went up to $767 and for the month of February my bill went up to $1847. We are a low income family that only bring home $1300 a month. People like us cant afford to pay these high electric bills. CR, Ashmore We have a 1,280 sq. ft. ranch-style home with a family of two adults and one child with a total electric home. January bill was $216.39, 2007.42 Electric KWH total usage. Avg. temp 36. February bill $281.36, 2948.00 Electric KWH total usage. Avg. temp 18. Fortunately, I am on Budget Billing (a/k/a Equalizer) plan which I was just re-evaluated for in December. Prior to December I paid $107 a month on the plan. During the re-evaluation in December, AmerenCIPS (knowing their rates were going up) found me to be using less and changed my plan amount to $106 a month ($1 less). They re-evaluate the Budget Billing amount every four months so the effect of the increase has not happened for me yet but will in four months when they make the entire balance behind due and certainly increase my Budget Billing amount. JW, Charleston I am a homeowner living on the west side of Charleston with a family of five. My January bill was $350.11. As if that was not high enough, my February bill came to a unbelievable $449. I am paying another house payment for my electricity. It is a real struggle to keep my bills paid and paid on time. I cant imagine how the elderly can afford this increase. I am praying that something will be done soon for everyones sake. MP, Charleston My CIPS bill: January $153.96 February $227.50 KK, Charleston Our household bill for January was $112.07 and February $143.59 for a two-month total of $255.66. We have a two-bedroom condo with windows on east, south, and west. VR In January, my Ameren bill was $259.40. In February, my Ameren bill was $429.62 (almost doubled) JB, Mattoon My electric bill last year was $152, this year same period, $403. EW My electric bills for January, February and March were $146.95, $197.18 and $394.10, respectively. A more telling fact is that my highest bill for the same period in 2006 was $179.80. How is that justified? We are an all-electric household. What Ameren did not publicize is that fact they canceled the incentives for being all electric along with the rate hike. LM, Mattoon Our average bill this time of year runs around $270-$300 per month, our new bill this period is $660; we cant pay this. Ive sent emails to Flider, to the governor. I did get a response from Flider, but as expected, nothing from our so-called governor. Everybody needs to complain and take a stand on this issue. JS, Strasburg January - $339.26, February - $433.54 RB Our house is all electric and has been since we built in 1973. Bill date Jan.15 - $168.08 Bill date Feb 12 - $357.94 Difference $189.86 Besides the increase, we also lost our special winter heating rate which we have always had. BRL, Mattoon Since we have a newborn at home, we keep our house heated at around 70 degrees. January and February bills combined totaled almost $900. That is equivalent to almost 3 car payments and one and a half house payments. TK, Mattoon January - $262 February - $350 For those of us on fixed income, this is shocking. What do we cut back? Food, meds or that needed trip to the doctor? This impacts the whole community not just individuals. The more we spend on our power bills the less we have to spend for other necessities. This greed must be stopped. Sara (no last name) I am a very low income single mother of 2 minor children. I struggle to pay my monthly bills every month but since the increase it has gotten worse. My January bill was $312.60 which is just $25.40 less than my house
