Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Cowgate: Animal Agriculture Not a Major Contributor to Global Warming. Any Comments?

From the Washington Post.

 

Forget all that indecorous talk of animal flatulence, cow burps, vegetarianism and global warming. Welcome to Cowgate.

Lower consumption of meat and dairy products will not have a major impact in combating global warming — despite persistent claims that link such diets to more greenhouse gases. So says a report presented Monday before the American Chemical Society.

It is the bovine version of Climategate, complete with faulty science and noisy activists with big agendas.

Cows and pigs have gotten a "bum rap," said Frank Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California at Davis who authored the report. He is plenty critical of scientists and vegetarian activists such as Paul McCartney who insist that livestock account for about a fifth of all greenhouse-gas emissions.

He also is critical of highly-publicized campaigns that call for "meatless Mondays" or push the motto "Less Meat = Less Heat," a European campaign launched in December during the Copenhagen climate summit. Talk of pricey air pollution permits of a "cow tax" for already cash-strapped farmers has surfaced in the U.S. and abroad.

 
Click here to read the whole story on the Washington Post website...

Views: 298

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joann on April 8, 2010 at 2:24am
It just proves once again, that the populace are being herded like a school of fish with an aquarium mind-set.

The UN clearly is focused on shifting the global wealth and has patently found the argument of "climate change" as an easily accepted vehicle that most people can readily buy into. The global warming debate lends a level of empowerment to the average citizen. We are now demanding lifestyle changes without the benefit of global "truths" such as "Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries." .

How can government turn down demands from their majority of citizens?

Another good article can be found at (24 March 2010)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm
"Dr Mitloehner contends that in developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions."
Permalink Reply by Wayne Black on April 8, 2010 at 3:09pm
From London's Science Museum:
" The scientific community has, with some exceptions, concluded that climate change is real, largely driven by humans and requires a response," said the museum's director Professor Chris Rapley. "Our objective is to minimise the shrill tone and emotion that bedevils discussion of this subject."

with that being said... Let's get on with life and enjoy the upcoming BBQ season.
Permalink Reply by Arik Theijsmeijer on April 9, 2010 at 2:21am
Just a note that emissions from animal agriculture are not just about bodily emissions from the animals themselves, more important is the energy and water expended in growing and transporting grain for those animals. So while the criticism of the UN in report is sound, it is not at all the point of that report. The point of the report still stands, in that reducing the consumption of grain-fed meat overall leads to significantly lower emmissions. Carbon is actually sequestered in grass-fed methods so it is the grain that matters.

It's also important to note that you can just focus on any one sector, like transportation or agriculture, as we have consider the environment in all major aspects of our lives in order to do what it takes to reduce the serious impact of climate change. Finally, to take the UN's mistake and speculate about what either global food policy or individual choices should be as Mr. Mitloehner does in the longer versio of the article, is not his role and is beyond his expertise and his work, as various commentors have stated since this 'sensational' story broke.

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

‘It’s another blow’: Farmers deal with surging fertilizer prices ahead of seeding

Fertilizer is an essential part of Kevin Peters’ farm in southwestern Manitoba. But since Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran, the average price of urea fertilizer, which is widely used around the world, has skyrocketed, surging around 30 per cent over the last week. Peters says the interruption in supply didn’t come as a huge surprise to him. “We deal with geopolitical issues all the time with markets, be it pork, be it grain, and now fertilizer,” he said. “There’s always some disruption seeming to happen somewhere in the world that is changing our daily prices.” Peters says he pre-purchased his fertilizer for this farming season back in the fall but is concerned about prices later this year when he has to buy fertilizer again. “We’ll see what the market looks like in eight months,” he said. Like Peters, Andrew James also pre-bought his fertilizer in the fall for his farm in Anola, Man., and he says he is happy he did. “My fertilizer bill for that (at the time) was around $350,00

From a Piece of Wire to Contaminated Feed: Preventing Foreign Material Hazards in Beef Cattle Operations

Foreign material and toxin consumption by beef cattle can lead to significant health problems, reduced performance and economic losses. Canadian cattle producers take great pride and care in how they manage their farms and ranches, from providing proper nutrition to stewarding their land and ensuring excellent animal care. Yet even with the best intentions, foreign materials and toxins can quietly find their way into feed, water or pastures. Understanding where they come from and how to prevent exposure is a key part of protecting your herd. Foreign materials and toxins often slip in through everyday farm activities such as repairing fences, running equipment, feeding hay or dealing with weather-stressed crops. A small piece of wire, leftover net wrap or contaminated feed source might not seem like much, but if consumed by cattle, it can trigger health issues, lost performance or even death. Understanding Hardware Disease When cattle consume sharp metal objects like nails or pieces

Farmers Balance Costs and Technology Investments - Tractor Sales Down

Tractor sales fell across most categories in February, but strong combine demand highlights farmers’ continued investment in productivity boosting technology.

Crude Oil and Natural Gas Outlook - What Farmers Need to Know in 2026–2027

Brent crude prices surge as Middle East conflict disrupts supply. See the 2026–2027 outlook for oil, natural gas, and electricity—and what it means for U.S. agriculture

Principal field crop areas, 2026

Canadian farmers expect to plant more canola, barley, soybeans and corn for grain in 2026, while they anticipate area seeded to wheat, oats, lentils and dry peas to decrease compared with the previous year. Wheat At the national level, farmers anticipate planting 26.7 million acres of wheat in 2026, down 1.1% from the previous year. If this anticipation is realized, national wheat area would remain well above the five-year average, despite a decrease from 2025, which would likely be attributable to continued strong global demand. Producers expect spring wheat area to edge down 0.1% to 18.8 million acres in 2026. They anticipate durum wheat area to decrease 2.4% to 6.4 million acres, while they expect winter wheat area to fall 6.7% to 1.6 million acres. Farmers in Saskatchewan anticipate planting 13.9 million acres of wheat in 2026, down 1.0% from the previous year. Producers expect spring wheat area to fall 0.6% to 8.7 million acres, while they anticipate durum wheat area to remain

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service