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: 284

▶ 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

Low commodity prices and high input costs a double whammy for Manitoba farmers

Manitoba farmers are facing a perfect storm of low grain prices and soaring fertilizer costs that are threatening profitability for both the current harvest and next year’s crop. Current harvest delivery prices have fallen to $7 per bushel for hard red spring wheat, $13.25 for canola, $11 for soybeans and $4 for oats, representing harvest pricing typically seed at the lows of a pricing cycle. On the cost side, fertilizer costs have climbed significantly from the numbers used in Manitoba Ag’s 2025 crop cost of production guide, which was compiled last November.  Urea has jumped to $850-900 per metric tonne, about 30 per cent higher than the $690 per tonne used in those calculations. Data from Manitoba Ag show a surge in crop production costs in 2022.  Those have stayed elevated and, when combined with current grain prices, the cost pressure is particularly acute.

US wheat finds new markets in Asia

Flour millers in Asia have ramped up imports of U.S. wheat in recent weeks, driven by competitive prices from American suppliers and delays in shipments from the Black Sea. Indonesian importers have finalized deals for around 500,000 tons, while buyers in Bangladesh secured about 250,000 tons and millers in Sri Lanka acquired around 100,000 tons. Millers are taking both U.S. soft white wheat and hard red winter wheat varieties. Apparently, there were some weather issues which delayed cargoes from the Black Sea region, and U.S. prices have been pretty competitive. This is additional demand for U.S. wheat in Asia, complementing purchases by traditional buyers such as Thailand, the Philippines and Taiwan.

Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Agriculture (FPT) Meetings Highlight Farmer Concerns

Industry leaders and government officials kicked off the FPT meetings at a Manitoba farm. Farmers and representatives from the Canola Council of Canada (CCC), CCGA, and provincial commissions shared their concerns directly with Minister MacDonald and Parliamentary Secretary Kody Blois. A key message was clear: farmers cannot borrow their way through these trade disputes, they were not of their making. Farmers are feeling the damage directly in their pockets. With canola selling at a discount between $60-$100/tonne...on an average 20MMT crop, that translates to estimated losses of $1.2–2.0 billion from lost exports to China. Federal Announcements: Some Support, but Gaps Remain The federal government announced $370 million in biofuel funding and additional trade diversification support. While these measures are a step in the right direction, they fall short of addressing the direct impact on canola farmers and exporters in lost bookings. Concerns remain over the lack of timelines for re

The Last Word (For Now) on Rest Stops During Long-Distance Transport

When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) began to muse about requiring that cattle be unloaded and provided with a rest stop after 36 hours of transportation, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Canada’s beef industry funded a series of research projects led by Karen Schwartzkopf-Genswein’s team at AAFC’s Lethbridge Research Station to determine whether a rest stop would benefit weaned calves. The research began before the regulations were revised, but the regulations were revised before the research could be completed. Three consecutive research trials conducted in 2018, 2019 and 2020 found that providing a rest stop during long haul transportation offered no consistent, measurable benefits for animal welfare. A companion project led by Trevor Alexander at AAFC Lethbridge looked at bacterial populations in the respiratory tract of those same calves. In September 2023, this column described how microbiological testing from the 2018 transportation trial found that rested

Federal Plastics Registry has new compliance requirement

The federal government has created new reporting requirements under its new Federal Plastics Registry. The registry is being phased in over a few years, however phase 1 requires Canadian brand owners to report on plastic packaging placed on the market by September 29, 2025, for the 2024 calendar year.

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service