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 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 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 vegetation, sometimes initiated by
>>traditional herders
>> >> >to get high quality new grass shoots during the dry season, but also
>> >> >practised by hunters and croppers to clear the land or chase
>>the game, is
>> >> >another important contribution to CO2 emissions.. Although
>>exact estimates
>> >> >are lacking, one estimate (Menault, 1993) puts the annual
>>emission of the
>> >> >savannas at 18 percent of the global agricultural emissions of CO2. "
>> >> >Later:
>> >> >"Carbon dioxide. In discussing carbon dioxide a clear
>>distinction should be
>> >> >made between temporary and permanent emissions. Many CO2
>>emissions related
>> >> >to livestock production are part of a normal ecological cycle, with CO2
>> >> >being released at the end of a growing season, but immediately
>>recaptured
>> >> >again in the next growing season. The emissions from savanna
>>burning fall
>> >> >into this category. Most temperate grasslands therefore have
>>also a neutral
>> >> >balance. Livestock-induced deforestation in grazing systems,
>>driven by road
>> >> >construction, land speculation and inappropriate incentives (Chapter 2),
>> >> >and fossil fuel use in the industrial system, driven by increased demand
>> >> >(Chapter 4) are thus the main sources of permanent carbon release."
>> >> >
>> >> > I think if we are to quote numbers such as % increases or % of total
>> >> >GHG emissions due to a particular source, we should get our
>>numbers right.
>> >> >If not, we may simply succeed in deflecting attention/blame
>>from where it
>> >> >belongs .... energy addiction .... specifically energy generated from
>> >> >fossil fuels. Today we'll blame livestock for the mess we're in tomorrow
>> >> >we'll be blaming the damn anaerobes living in the guts of termites.
>> >> > Tom
>> >> >
>> >> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Dyck"
>> >> >To:
>> >> >Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:28 PM
>> >> >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Hi Tom,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I read the information on the environmental on-line magazine called "
>> >> >>Grist
>> >> >>Magazine". web site is; [EMAIL PROTECTED] The issue was from about the
>> >> >>middle of Feb. I believe. It was a story done on how a vegetarian diet
>> >> >>can
>> >> >>help to reduce GHG. I had to click on to the heading to get all of the
>> >> >>information. There could still be a discussion going on about
>>this topic
>> >> >>on
>> >> >>their site.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Terry Dyck
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>From: "Thomas Kelly"
>> >> >>>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>>To:
>> >> >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
>> >> >>>Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 15:46:49 -0500
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Terry,
>> >> >>> You quote The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization as
>> >> >>>follows:
>> >> >>> "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to todays
>> >> >>>most
>> >> >>>serious environmental problems."
>> >> >>>You go on to say:
>> >> >>> "They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37%
>> >> >>>methane
>> >> >>>and 65% nitrous oxide. Those are world totals."
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Where can I find the article you are quoting?
>> >> >>> Tom
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>----- Original Message -----
>> >> >>>From: "Terry Dyck"
>> >> >>>To:
>> >> >>>Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 1:35 PM
>> >> >>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > Hi Keith,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Because the source of the facts came from the Vancouver Sun's Green
>> >> >>>Issue
>> >> >>> > in
>> >> >>> > Nov. I am not sure of were the Original Union of
>>Concerned Scientists
>> >> >>> > study
>> >> >>> > is. Here is a quote from Brad Knickerbocker of the
>>Christian Science
>> >> >>> > Monitor: "U.S. meat eater are responsible for more tons of CO2 per
>> >> >>>person
>> >> >>> > than 1 vegetarian per year." The causes are;
>>deforrestation, land for
>> >> >>> > feed
>> >> >>> > crops, energy for fertilizers, runs to slaugherhouses and meat
>> >> >>>processing
>> >> >>> > plants, and pumping water.
>> >> >>> > The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's quote.
>> >> >>>"Livestock
>> >> >>> > are one of the most significant contributors to todays most serious
>> >> >>> > environmental problems." This organization also quoted
>>the 18% figure
>> >> >>>for
>> >> >>> > GHG. They also mentioned that livestock produces 9% for CO2 and 37%
>> >> >>> > methane
>> >> >>> > and 65% nitrous oxide. Those are world totals.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Terry Dyck
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >>From: Keith Addison
>> >> >>> >>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
>> >> >>> >>Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 02:54:06 +0900
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>Hi Terry
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >Hi Keith,
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >I'm not sure how the math works out but you have to take into
>> >> >>> >>consideration
>> >> >>> >> >that methane gas is 23 times more potent as a green
>>house gas then
>> >> >>>CO2.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>I didn't forget that, but shouldn't that mean more cars, not fewer
>> >> >>> >>cars? Also it's not clear when they say "18% of total global
>> >> >>> >>emissions" whether they're referring to methane emissions or total
>> >> >>> >>GHG emissions.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>I think UCS usually gets it right, I don't think they
>>were correctly
>> >> >>> >>quoted. But I haven't managed to find the original work at their
>> >> >>> >>website.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >Also the commercial livestock farms use many times more
>>fossil fuels
>> >> >>>to
>> >> >>> >> >create food than do organic produce farms. Of course the 100 mile
>> >> >>>diet
>> >> >>> >>is
>> >> >>> >> >important too.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>Indeed. To sum up, I think the criticism applies to factory farms,
>> >> >>> >>which are not farms at all, but it doesn't apply to real farming.
>> >> >>> >>Adopting a vegetarian diet is perhaps one alternative to supporting
>> >> >>> >>factory farming, but a better alternative is to support sustainable
>> >> >>> >>farming, which necessarily includes livestock and meat production.
>> >> >>> >>Vegetarianism itself is not a sustainable alternative. As an
>> >> >>> >>individual diet choice perhaps, but not as a farming system.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>Thanks - regards
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>Keith
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >Terry Dyck
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> > >From: Keith Addison
>> >> >>> >> > >Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >> > >To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >> > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' Power Use
>> >> >>> >> > >Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:13:55 +0900
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >Hi Terry
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >Thanks for finding the ref.
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > > >Hi Keith,
>> >> >>> >> > > >
>> >> >>> >> > > >You asked for a link to the the UCS quote. It was from the
>> >> >>>Green
>> >> >>> >> > > >Issue of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in Nov.
>>(Vancouver, BC, >>
>> >> >>> > > >Can.)
>> >> >>> >> > > >The actual quote was, Methane produced by waste on cattle and
>> >> >>>hog
>> >> >>> >> > > >farms is as hard on the atmospher as 33 million
>>cars. 18% of >>
>> >> >>> > > >total
>> >> >>> >> > > >global emissions.
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >But 33 million cars is only about 15% of the number
>>of vehicles in
>> >> >>> >> > >the US, let alone globally, how can that equal 18% of global
>> >> >>> >> > >emissions?
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >"Cattle and hog farms" means CAFOs, not farms, or at
>>least in the
>> >> >>> >> > >vast majority of cases. I don't think that's the same
>>as what you
>> >> >>> >> > >said, "the total of all livestock on this planet".
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > > >>I think the meat industry would account for a lot
>>more than a
>> >> >>> >> > > >>paltry
>> >> >>> >> > > >>33 million cars' worth of GHGs.
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >I still think that. The claim of 18% of global emissions from
>> >> >>>CAFOs
>> >> >>> >> > >doesn't sound unreasonable, but the cars bit can't be
>>right, seems
>> >> >>>to
>> >> >>> >> > >me.
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >Thanks Terry.
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >Best
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >Keith
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >> > > >Terry Dyck
>> >> >>> >> > > >
>> >> >>> >> > > >
>> >> >>> >> > > >>From: Keith Addison
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >> > > >>To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient
>>Truth' Power Use
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:26:10 +0900
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Hello Terry
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >Hi Kirk,
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >If all of us did what we should be doing our
>>houses would be
>> >> >>>one
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >room heated with Geo Thermal, hot water and electricity by
>> >> >>>solar
>> >> >>> >>and
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >we would walk or bike almost everywere
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>This:
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >and we would be totally Vegan.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>... is nonsense, as we've established quite thoroughly many
>> >> >>>times.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Please go to the archives and check it out.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>There is no way of raising crops sustainably without using
>> >> >>> >> > > >>livestock
>> >> >>> >> > > >>in the production system. No vegetarian farming
>>system has ever
>> >> >>> >> > > >>survived the test of time.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Please don't argue about it until you've checked it out, no
>> >> >>>need
>> >> >>>to
>> >> >>> >> > > >>go over the same old ground yet another time.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that
>>because of the
>> >> >>> >>amount
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >of Methane gas caused from feed lots, etc. that
>>the total of
>> >> >>>all
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >livestock on this planet is equivalent to taking
>>33 million
>> >> >>>cars
>> >> >>> >>of
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >the road.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>"Feed lots, etc"? What does the "etc" mean?
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>I'm sure the amount of GHGs emitted by trees etc
>>is even worse,
>> >> >>> >> > > >>should we cut them all down too?
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>"Do trees share blame for global warming?"
>> >> >>> >> > > >>http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0119/p13s01-sten.html
>> >> >>> >> > > >>"Globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to
>>30 percent
>> >> >>>of
>> >> >>> >> > > >>global methane emissions."
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>I haven't seen the UCS report you mention, would
>>you give us a
>> >> >>> >> > > >>reference or a link please?
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Anyway you're talking about feedlots, CAFOs, Confined Animal
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Feeding
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Operations, industrialised factory farms. No CAFOs no meat?
>> >> >>>That's
>> >> >>> >> > > >>the same mistake enviros make when they attack fuel ethanol
>> >> >>>because
>> >> >>> >> > > >>they don't like Archer Daniel Midlands and
>>Cargill. There are
>> >> >>>other
>> >> >>> >> > > >>ways of doing things, as we ought to know by now.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>There've been a number of high-profile critiques
>>of industrial
>> >> >>>meat
>> >> >>> >> > > >>production and global warming, this is the main one:
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > >
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A
>>0701E00.htm
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Livestock's long shadow - Environmental issues and options
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Feedlot cattle, pigs and poultry eat industrialised grain,
>> >> >>>produced
>> >> >>> >> > > >>with high dependence on fossil-fuel inputs and at high
>> >> >>> >> > > >>environmental
>> >> >>> >> > > >>cost, and the same applies to the CAFO livestock production
>> >> >>>system
>> >> >>> >> > > >>itself. Check out how carbon-neutral
>>industrialised grain turns
>> >> >>>out
>> >> >>> >> > > >>to be. Pastured livestock eat forage.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>With CAFOs most of the methane emissions result
>>from the manure
>> >> >>> >> > > >>storage, especially with pigs. With pastured livestock,
>> >> >>>especially
>> >> >>> >> > > >>with rotational pasture, the manure provides the
>>soil fertility
>> >> >>>to
>> >> >>> >> > > >>produce multiple following crops, displaces the need for
>> >> >>> >> > > >>fossil-fuel
>> >> >>> >> > > >>based chemical fertilisers, and does so at a
>>healthy profit. >>
>> >> >>> > > >>Such
>> >> >>> >> > > >>pasture soils sequester very large amounts of carbon.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>I think the meat industry would account for a lot
>>more than a
>> >> >>> >> > > >>paltry
>> >> >>> >> > > >>33 million cars' worth of GHGs. Well so what, it
>>doesn't have
>> >> >>> >> > > >>any
>> >> >>> >> > > >>future anyway, any more than the rest of the industrial
>> >> >>>agriculture
>> >> >>> >> > > >>disaster does. It's fossil-fuel dependent every step of the
>> >> >>>way,
>> >> >>> >> > > >>and
>> >> >>> >> > > >>measured in food miles that comes to a hell of a long way.
>> >> >>>It'll
>> >> >>> >>bust
>> >> >>> >> > > >>all their bottom-lines when carbon accounting starts hitting
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>> >> > > >>global trade it depends on, the insane
>>distribution system, the
>> >> >>> >> > > >>processing. Apart from all of which CAFOs have
>>become a major
>> >> >>> >> > > >>bio-hazard.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>No need for it anyway. The future is small, sustainable,
>> >> >>>family-run
>> >> >>> >> > > >>mixed farms with integrated crop and livestock
>>production, low
>> >> >>> >>input,
>> >> >>> >> > > >>high output, local markets.
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Best
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>Keith
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >Terry Dyck
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>From: Kirk McLoren
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient
>>Truth' Power
>> >> >>>Use
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:45:14 -0800 (PST)
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>The message is - It isnt really that important.
>>If it were I
>> >> >>> >>would do
>> >> >>> >> > >it.
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> So how true is it - at least to him.
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> If it doent motivate him maybe he knows
>>something we dont.
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> So of all people to squander energy it shouldnt be him.
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> You might want to look into Cripple Creek Coal
>>which he is
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> on
>> >> >>> >>the
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>board of directors.
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> Kirk
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>Tom Irwin wrote:
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> Hi Kirk and all,
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> When the message cannot be attacked then attack the
>> >> >>>messenger.
>> >> >>> >>Ok,
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>so Gore doesn´t walk the talk. How many of us
>>do? We try to,
>> >> >>>but
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>there is a long way to go for most everyone in
>>the developed
>> >> >>> >>world.
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>It´s the message that´s inportant, not the man.
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >> Tom Irwin
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>---------------------------------
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>From: Kirk McLoren
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>Reply-To: biofuel at sustainablelists.org
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>To: biofuel
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>Subject: [Biofuel] Al Gore's 'Inconvenient
>>Truth' Power Use
>> >> >>> >> > > >> >>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0800 (PST)
_______________________________________________
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/
