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 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/A0701E00.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
> >>> >>
=== message truncated ===_______________________________________________
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/
---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
