Beef Production More Sustainable Now, WSU Expert Says
EPOnline.com
Jul 26, 2010
Advances in productivity over the past 30 years have reduced the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of U.S. beef production, according to a new study presented by a Washington State University researcher.
In “Comparing the environmental impact of the US beef industry in 1977 to 2007,” assistant professor of animal science Jude L. Capper revealed that improvements in nutrition, management, growth rate and slaughter weights, have significantly reduced the environmental impact of modern beef production and improved its sustainability.
“These findings challenge the common misconception that historical methods of livestock production are more environmentally sustainable than modern beef production,” said Capper in a presentation on July 14 at the American Society of Animal Science meeting in Denver. Read More
There are plenty of people trying to eliminate animal agriculture by spreading misinformation about it’s impact on the environment. The truth of the matter is that animal agriculture has greatly reduced the environmental impact over the last few decades. But it doesn’t stop there. The improvement that we have seen is continuing into the future. We depend on a healthy environment to raise healthy livestock which is why farmers and ranchers are some the greenest people around. ~Troy
Showing posts with label sustainable agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainable agriculture. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Report Backs Non-Conventional Practices
National council report backs sustainable food
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
(06-30) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- The prestigious National Research Council threw its considerable heft behind the sustainable food movement Tuesday with a 570-page report that endorses the new food and farm practices that began in the Bay Area and have taken the nation by storm.
There are now twice as many farmers - 30,000 to 40,000 - selling local meat and produce in farmers' markets than there are growing cotton, a major industrial crop, said August Schumacher, an author of the report and a former undersecretary of agriculture in the George H.W. Bush administration.
"This is not just San Francisco, Boston and New York," Schumacher said of what has been called alternative agriculture but is fast going mainstream - everything from the locavore, organic and "slow food" movements to animal welfare advocacy. "It's Kansas City. It's Boise, Idaho. It's Abingdon, Va."
External costs
While the industrial farm model has generated astonishing efficiency gains and lowered the cost of food, the report found, it has imposed enormous external costs on the environment, human health, animal welfare and workers that are not included in the price of food.
Julia Kornegay, the chair of the committee that wrote the report and chair of the department of horticulture science at North Carolina State University, said the industrial farm system has become increasingly fragile and prone to outside shocks such as a sudden increase in oil or feed prices, water shortages or concerns about food safety.
Produced by a dozen academic and industry leaders and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the report squares off against a growing backlash by proponents of industrial agriculture to what they see as a utopian and romanticized vision of pastoral life that would take food production back to the 19th century and starve the world.
"A post-materialist fantasy," is what Robert Paarlberg, a member of the Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the National Research Council and a leading food policy academic, has called the new food movement.
Paarlberg says the new food movement is playing out on Africa's small, impoverished farms, where most of the continent's people earn $1 a day, where 80 percent of the labor is done by women and children, where animals forage, insecticides and herbicides are unaffordable and food imports are the only barrier to starvation. Read More
Here is what this article says, America’s farmers and ranchers had done an incredible job of feeding our country and others at the most affordable price in the world, BUT, that needs to be changed. Their claims that food production is too vulnerable to things like high oil prices are an extremely narrow point of view. That doesn’t justify families having to pay much higher food prices all the time. When inputs go up, so do prices. No type of farming will prevent that.
Here’s another thing that seems apparent. The people that were studying this issue went into it with the pre-conceived bias that the current food production system is bad and needs changed. You can tell this by the broad statements made such as the environment needs to be protected. I don’t know anyone that’s involved in agriculture that doesn’t care about the soil and water that generate their livelihood. I get tired of hearing people say that I don’t care about things like that. I don’t care what type of production system you use, if you don’t care about things like that you will be out of business very quickly.
A well-fed society neglects it’s agriculture. Those words have never been more true than they are today.
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
(06-30) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- The prestigious National Research Council threw its considerable heft behind the sustainable food movement Tuesday with a 570-page report that endorses the new food and farm practices that began in the Bay Area and have taken the nation by storm.
There are now twice as many farmers - 30,000 to 40,000 - selling local meat and produce in farmers' markets than there are growing cotton, a major industrial crop, said August Schumacher, an author of the report and a former undersecretary of agriculture in the George H.W. Bush administration.
"This is not just San Francisco, Boston and New York," Schumacher said of what has been called alternative agriculture but is fast going mainstream - everything from the locavore, organic and "slow food" movements to animal welfare advocacy. "It's Kansas City. It's Boise, Idaho. It's Abingdon, Va."
External costs
While the industrial farm model has generated astonishing efficiency gains and lowered the cost of food, the report found, it has imposed enormous external costs on the environment, human health, animal welfare and workers that are not included in the price of food.
Julia Kornegay, the chair of the committee that wrote the report and chair of the department of horticulture science at North Carolina State University, said the industrial farm system has become increasingly fragile and prone to outside shocks such as a sudden increase in oil or feed prices, water shortages or concerns about food safety.
Produced by a dozen academic and industry leaders and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the report squares off against a growing backlash by proponents of industrial agriculture to what they see as a utopian and romanticized vision of pastoral life that would take food production back to the 19th century and starve the world.
"A post-materialist fantasy," is what Robert Paarlberg, a member of the Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the National Research Council and a leading food policy academic, has called the new food movement.
Paarlberg says the new food movement is playing out on Africa's small, impoverished farms, where most of the continent's people earn $1 a day, where 80 percent of the labor is done by women and children, where animals forage, insecticides and herbicides are unaffordable and food imports are the only barrier to starvation. Read More
Here is what this article says, America’s farmers and ranchers had done an incredible job of feeding our country and others at the most affordable price in the world, BUT, that needs to be changed. Their claims that food production is too vulnerable to things like high oil prices are an extremely narrow point of view. That doesn’t justify families having to pay much higher food prices all the time. When inputs go up, so do prices. No type of farming will prevent that.
Here’s another thing that seems apparent. The people that were studying this issue went into it with the pre-conceived bias that the current food production system is bad and needs changed. You can tell this by the broad statements made such as the environment needs to be protected. I don’t know anyone that’s involved in agriculture that doesn’t care about the soil and water that generate their livelihood. I get tired of hearing people say that I don’t care about things like that. I don’t care what type of production system you use, if you don’t care about things like that you will be out of business very quickly.
A well-fed society neglects it’s agriculture. Those words have never been more true than they are today.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Consumers Will Support GM Food
Food Technology: 'What's in it for Me?'
by International Food Information Council Foundation Jun 04, 2010
Many of us can probably recall a time when we waited in a long line just to purchase the latest mobile or electronic technology. But, do we have the same reaction when it comes to technology used in food production? Granted, it may not seem as exciting as that new MP3 player or cell phone, but does food technology deserve a bad rap? What do Americans really think about food technology, and what types of messages resonate with them?
To gain insight into these very issues, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) recently conducted our 14 "Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology" Survey (formerly the "IFIC Survey of Consumer Attitudinal Trends toward Food Biotechnology"), which explores U.S. consumers' perceptions of various aspects of plant and animal biotechnology, as well as sustainability and new and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology.
Key Takeaways
While we gained several interesting insights from this year's Survey, one of the most important takeaways was that Americans' support of the use of food biotechnology is strongest when they consider its potential benefits for impacting issues of importance to them, such as reducing the impact of food and food production on the environment, and improving sustainability. Read More
The things that consumers want genetically enhanced foods to accomplish is exactly what they are doing. They were designed so less pesticides and herbicides would need to be used. We are producing more with less and feeding the world. Unfortunately there are many consumers out there who are basing their opinions about this technology off scary headlines and rumors. If consumers can look through the emotion and take an objective look at it, we’d all be better off.
by International Food Information Council Foundation Jun 04, 2010
Many of us can probably recall a time when we waited in a long line just to purchase the latest mobile or electronic technology. But, do we have the same reaction when it comes to technology used in food production? Granted, it may not seem as exciting as that new MP3 player or cell phone, but does food technology deserve a bad rap? What do Americans really think about food technology, and what types of messages resonate with them?
To gain insight into these very issues, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) recently conducted our 14 "Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology" Survey (formerly the "IFIC Survey of Consumer Attitudinal Trends toward Food Biotechnology"), which explores U.S. consumers' perceptions of various aspects of plant and animal biotechnology, as well as sustainability and new and emerging technologies such as nanotechnology.
Key Takeaways
While we gained several interesting insights from this year's Survey, one of the most important takeaways was that Americans' support of the use of food biotechnology is strongest when they consider its potential benefits for impacting issues of importance to them, such as reducing the impact of food and food production on the environment, and improving sustainability. Read More
The things that consumers want genetically enhanced foods to accomplish is exactly what they are doing. They were designed so less pesticides and herbicides would need to be used. We are producing more with less and feeding the world. Unfortunately there are many consumers out there who are basing their opinions about this technology off scary headlines and rumors. If consumers can look through the emotion and take an objective look at it, we’d all be better off.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Ag IS Sustainable
Defining Sustainable Agriculture
May 4, 2010 10:00 AM, By Kent Thiesse
Corn and Soybean Digest
“Sustainable agriculture” is a phrase that has been around for decades; however, it has recently been receiving increased emphasis by businesses, organizations and political leaders. USDA’s Ag Outlook Conference a couple months ago focused on sustainable agriculture, as did the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council annual meeting in October 2009. If you ask 100 people to define sustainable agriculture, you will likely get 100 different responses. Every person, business and organization seems to have its own definition of sustainability,as it relates to agriculture.
A more recent definition of sustainability is meeting the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That definition is quite complex, and can have a wide-range of interpretations. Most university experts and business leaders see sustainable agriculture as being sustainable environmentally, economically and socially. The environmental and economic aspects of sustainability have been around for decades, even centuries, in agriculture. The social aspect of sustainability is a newer concept that is gaining more and more focus in many developed countries in the world, including the U.S.
As mentioned earlier, the concept of sustainable agriculture has existed for decades, and has been emphasized in farm bills as well as other federal and state legislation. Consider some of the agricultural facts and improvements from the past few decades that are related to economic, environmental and social achievements:
· Farmers today grow five times as much corn on 20% less land than they did in 1930.
· In 1940, one U.S. farmer produced enough food and fiber for 19 people, compared to production for 155 people today.
· From 1987 to 2007, average corn productivity increased by over 40%, and has increased at even more rapid pace in recent years.
· Corn producers grow 70% more corn/pound of fertilizer than they did in the 1970s.
· Reduced tillage and improved farm management practices have reduced soil erosion by about 43% in the last twenty years, while soil lost per bushel of corn produced has dropped by 69% during that same period of time.
· Carbon emissions per unit of output in crop production have dropped by one-third in the past 20 years, while energy used per unit of crop production has decreased by 60%. Read More
One of the frustrating things I hear being said about agriculture today is that farmers and ranchers need to change in order to be sustainable. There is this mentality being perpetuated by the likes of Michael Pollan and others that current farms and ranches, most of which are several generations old, aren’t sustainable. Not only is this not correct, but it’s also insulting. No one knows more about sustainability than those in agriculture. Not only do we set yearly goals, but I have never met a farmer or rancher that didn’t hope to be able to pass their business on to the next generation. So for those who want to claim ag needs to start being sustainable, well, they are late to a party that started many generations ago. ~Troy
May 4, 2010 10:00 AM, By Kent Thiesse
Corn and Soybean Digest
“Sustainable agriculture” is a phrase that has been around for decades; however, it has recently been receiving increased emphasis by businesses, organizations and political leaders. USDA’s Ag Outlook Conference a couple months ago focused on sustainable agriculture, as did the Minnesota Agri-Growth Council annual meeting in October 2009. If you ask 100 people to define sustainable agriculture, you will likely get 100 different responses. Every person, business and organization seems to have its own definition of sustainability,as it relates to agriculture.
A more recent definition of sustainability is meeting the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That definition is quite complex, and can have a wide-range of interpretations. Most university experts and business leaders see sustainable agriculture as being sustainable environmentally, economically and socially. The environmental and economic aspects of sustainability have been around for decades, even centuries, in agriculture. The social aspect of sustainability is a newer concept that is gaining more and more focus in many developed countries in the world, including the U.S.
As mentioned earlier, the concept of sustainable agriculture has existed for decades, and has been emphasized in farm bills as well as other federal and state legislation. Consider some of the agricultural facts and improvements from the past few decades that are related to economic, environmental and social achievements:
· Farmers today grow five times as much corn on 20% less land than they did in 1930.
· In 1940, one U.S. farmer produced enough food and fiber for 19 people, compared to production for 155 people today.
· From 1987 to 2007, average corn productivity increased by over 40%, and has increased at even more rapid pace in recent years.
· Corn producers grow 70% more corn/pound of fertilizer than they did in the 1970s.
· Reduced tillage and improved farm management practices have reduced soil erosion by about 43% in the last twenty years, while soil lost per bushel of corn produced has dropped by 69% during that same period of time.
· Carbon emissions per unit of output in crop production have dropped by one-third in the past 20 years, while energy used per unit of crop production has decreased by 60%. Read More
One of the frustrating things I hear being said about agriculture today is that farmers and ranchers need to change in order to be sustainable. There is this mentality being perpetuated by the likes of Michael Pollan and others that current farms and ranches, most of which are several generations old, aren’t sustainable. Not only is this not correct, but it’s also insulting. No one knows more about sustainability than those in agriculture. Not only do we set yearly goals, but I have never met a farmer or rancher that didn’t hope to be able to pass their business on to the next generation. So for those who want to claim ag needs to start being sustainable, well, they are late to a party that started many generations ago. ~Troy
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Defining Sustainable Agriculture
Defining ‘Sustainable Agriculture’
By Jared Flesher
Bloomberg News
Agreeing on a definition of “sustainable agriculture” is easier said than done.
Conventional farmers, organic farmers, giant agribusiness companies, environmentalists — all have varying views on what “sustainable agriculture” really means.
Perhaps not for long.
The Leonardo Academy, an environmental think tank in Madison, Wis., is busy refereeing a debate over a new “National Sustainable Agriculture Standard,” under the guidelines of the American National Standards Institute.
One outcome of this effort could be a new “sustainable agriculture” label stamped on food — similar to the way some food is now marketed as organic. It could also create a system that rewards farmers for doing things like reducing the amount of nitrogen fertilizer they use.
In late May, members of the 58-member standards committee met in St. Charles, Ill., to make the first decisions about the scope of the voluntary standards they hope to create. The committee includes a variety of stakeholders like the National Corn Growers Association, General Mills, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and American Farmland Trust.
One early point of contention has been genetically modified crops. Read More
The word sustainable is defined as using a resource in a way so that the resource isn’t depleted. So if the resource in question is food, then it shouldn’t matter if the crop in question has been genetically modified. Sustainable agriculture should be defined as the ability to grow enough food to feed everyone and to make enough profit so the farmer can continue in business. Putting the emphasis on anything less becomes insignificant.
By Jared Flesher
Bloomberg News
Agreeing on a definition of “sustainable agriculture” is easier said than done.
Conventional farmers, organic farmers, giant agribusiness companies, environmentalists — all have varying views on what “sustainable agriculture” really means.
Perhaps not for long.
The Leonardo Academy, an environmental think tank in Madison, Wis., is busy refereeing a debate over a new “National Sustainable Agriculture Standard,” under the guidelines of the American National Standards Institute.
One outcome of this effort could be a new “sustainable agriculture” label stamped on food — similar to the way some food is now marketed as organic. It could also create a system that rewards farmers for doing things like reducing the amount of nitrogen fertilizer they use.
In late May, members of the 58-member standards committee met in St. Charles, Ill., to make the first decisions about the scope of the voluntary standards they hope to create. The committee includes a variety of stakeholders like the National Corn Growers Association, General Mills, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and American Farmland Trust.
One early point of contention has been genetically modified crops. Read More
The word sustainable is defined as using a resource in a way so that the resource isn’t depleted. So if the resource in question is food, then it shouldn’t matter if the crop in question has been genetically modified. Sustainable agriculture should be defined as the ability to grow enough food to feed everyone and to make enough profit so the farmer can continue in business. Putting the emphasis on anything less becomes insignificant.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sustainable Farm Uses Unsustainable Practices
Field-to-plate: VT college students try farming
By LISA RATHKE – 1 day ago
POULTNEY, Vt. (AP) — Devin Lyons typically starts his days this summer cooking fresh eggs for breakfast from the farm's chicken coop. Then, depending on the weather, he and a dozen other college students might cut hay in the field using a team of oxen, turn compost or weed vegetable beds.
While other college students are in stuffy classrooms, about a dozen are earning credit tending a Vermont farm. For 13 weeks, 12 credits and about $12,500, the Green Mountain College
students plow fields with oxen or horses, milk cows, weed crops and grow and make their own food, part of an intensive course in sustainable agriculture using the least amount of fossil fuels.
"Lots of schools study sustainable agriculture but I don't think any of them put it into practice," said spokesman Kevin Coburn.
There are no tractors on the 22 acres next to the brick campus of the small liberal arts college on the edge of the town — just two teams of oxen, and goats, pigs, two cows, and chickens. Read More
There have been several articles that I have read in the last six months that were similar to this. They normally highlight a small college that is offering what amounts to a gardening class. This one is trying to use very little fossil fuel. They seem to be accomplishing that by using livestock to pull equipment and a lot of human labor. On the surface, I’m sure it sounds romantic to some people, but is this the most efficient way to grow food? In my opinion I would say no. While they may be using less fuel, they are also practicing some soil damaging practices such as plowing which causes the release of vast amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, lost soil moisture and soil erosion. Also, if they are relying on this as their sole source of food, they are one crop failure or natural disaster away from starvation. It’s great that people are learning about food production, but they need to realize this probably isn’t the best way to do it.
By LISA RATHKE – 1 day ago
POULTNEY, Vt. (AP) — Devin Lyons typically starts his days this summer cooking fresh eggs for breakfast from the farm's chicken coop. Then, depending on the weather, he and a dozen other college students might cut hay in the field using a team of oxen, turn compost or weed vegetable beds.
While other college students are in stuffy classrooms, about a dozen are earning credit tending a Vermont farm. For 13 weeks, 12 credits and about $12,500, the Green Mountain College
students plow fields with oxen or horses, milk cows, weed crops and grow and make their own food, part of an intensive course in sustainable agriculture using the least amount of fossil fuels.
"Lots of schools study sustainable agriculture but I don't think any of them put it into practice," said spokesman Kevin Coburn.
There are no tractors on the 22 acres next to the brick campus of the small liberal arts college on the edge of the town — just two teams of oxen, and goats, pigs, two cows, and chickens. Read More
There have been several articles that I have read in the last six months that were similar to this. They normally highlight a small college that is offering what amounts to a gardening class. This one is trying to use very little fossil fuel. They seem to be accomplishing that by using livestock to pull equipment and a lot of human labor. On the surface, I’m sure it sounds romantic to some people, but is this the most efficient way to grow food? In my opinion I would say no. While they may be using less fuel, they are also practicing some soil damaging practices such as plowing which causes the release of vast amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, lost soil moisture and soil erosion. Also, if they are relying on this as their sole source of food, they are one crop failure or natural disaster away from starvation. It’s great that people are learning about food production, but they need to realize this probably isn’t the best way to do it.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Dairies More Green Than Ever
Study finds modern dairies green, sustainable
(6/6/2009)
Sarah Muirhead
Contrary to the negative image often associated with large farm operations, the U.S. population’s requirements for dairy products is best fulfilled and most sustainable through the application of modern agricultural techniques, a just-released study has shown.
The study, conducted by Drs. Jude Capper and Dale Bauman of Cornell University and Roger Cady, formerly of Monsanto and now with Elanco Animal Health, compared the environmental impact of modern (2007) U.S. dairy production with that of dairy systems in 1944.
Among the findings were that modern dairy practices require considerably fewer resources than dairying in 1944 with 21% of animals, 23% of feedstuffs, 35% of the water and only 10% of the land required to produce the same 1 billion kg of milk.
Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern dairy systems producing 24% of the manure, 43% of CH4 and 56% of N2O per billion kg of milk, compared with equivalent milk from historical dairying. Read More
So many times we hear that agriculture is to blame for a myriad of environmental problems. However, the detractors never show the complete picture of the tremendous gains farmers and ranchers have made in reducing our environmental impact. The other important thing to remember is that we made these improvements on our own because it was the right thing to do. Farmers and ranchers were being sustainable environmentalists before it was cool.
(6/6/2009)
Sarah Muirhead
Contrary to the negative image often associated with large farm operations, the U.S. population’s requirements for dairy products is best fulfilled and most sustainable through the application of modern agricultural techniques, a just-released study has shown.
The study, conducted by Drs. Jude Capper and Dale Bauman of Cornell University and Roger Cady, formerly of Monsanto and now with Elanco Animal Health, compared the environmental impact of modern (2007) U.S. dairy production with that of dairy systems in 1944.
Among the findings were that modern dairy practices require considerably fewer resources than dairying in 1944 with 21% of animals, 23% of feedstuffs, 35% of the water and only 10% of the land required to produce the same 1 billion kg of milk.
Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern dairy systems producing 24% of the manure, 43% of CH4 and 56% of N2O per billion kg of milk, compared with equivalent milk from historical dairying. Read More
So many times we hear that agriculture is to blame for a myriad of environmental problems. However, the detractors never show the complete picture of the tremendous gains farmers and ranchers have made in reducing our environmental impact. The other important thing to remember is that we made these improvements on our own because it was the right thing to do. Farmers and ranchers were being sustainable environmentalists before it was cool.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Beef-Less Thursday
Dining halls begin to go beef-less on Thursdays
In an effort to provide a more sustainable and healthy menu, UCLA Dining Services goes without beef one day a week.
By Greg Swartz Originally published in The Daily Bruin
UCLA Dining Services recently announced a new decision to remove all beef from the dining halls every Thursday beginning today for the duration of this quarter.
The move toward “Beef-less Thursdays” is meant to advance UCLA’s sustainability and wellness goals, said Robert Gilbert, the sustainability coordinator for Housing and Hospitality Services.
Beef is an environmentally unfriendly food item because cows require a great deal of water to raise and they produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas, Gilbert said.
In fact, the methane that cows naturally produce is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, he added. This means that the raising of beef contributes about twice as much to global warming as the equivalent amount of other meats.
Beyond environmental concerns, beef is high in saturated fats, which have negative implications on health.
By removing beef from the menu, the dining halls hope to save about 1,000 pounds of beef every Thursday, Gilbert said. Since every pound of beef demands approximately 1,500 gallons of water to produce, this sustainable action could save 1,500,000 gallons of water, he added.
Read More
There are so many things that need correcting in this article. They claim they will save 1.5 million gallons of water every Thursday because they are taking beef off the menu. What they fail to think about is the food that will replace beef took water to grow as well, so common sense tells you that you won’t save that much water. And while cattle do produce methane as a result of their natural rumination process, the fact that they harvest grass that grows naturally and would otherwise be useless to humans isn’t taken into account. And finally, one-half of the fatty acid in beef is mono-unsaturated. It’s unfortunate that a university can’t do a little research and use a little common sense in order to make an informed decision.
In an effort to provide a more sustainable and healthy menu, UCLA Dining Services goes without beef one day a week.
By Greg Swartz Originally published in The Daily Bruin
UCLA Dining Services recently announced a new decision to remove all beef from the dining halls every Thursday beginning today for the duration of this quarter.
The move toward “Beef-less Thursdays” is meant to advance UCLA’s sustainability and wellness goals, said Robert Gilbert, the sustainability coordinator for Housing and Hospitality Services.
Beef is an environmentally unfriendly food item because cows require a great deal of water to raise and they produce methane, which is a greenhouse gas, Gilbert said.
In fact, the methane that cows naturally produce is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, he added. This means that the raising of beef contributes about twice as much to global warming as the equivalent amount of other meats.
Beyond environmental concerns, beef is high in saturated fats, which have negative implications on health.
By removing beef from the menu, the dining halls hope to save about 1,000 pounds of beef every Thursday, Gilbert said. Since every pound of beef demands approximately 1,500 gallons of water to produce, this sustainable action could save 1,500,000 gallons of water, he added.
Read More
There are so many things that need correcting in this article. They claim they will save 1.5 million gallons of water every Thursday because they are taking beef off the menu. What they fail to think about is the food that will replace beef took water to grow as well, so common sense tells you that you won’t save that much water. And while cattle do produce methane as a result of their natural rumination process, the fact that they harvest grass that grows naturally and would otherwise be useless to humans isn’t taken into account. And finally, one-half of the fatty acid in beef is mono-unsaturated. It’s unfortunate that a university can’t do a little research and use a little common sense in order to make an informed decision.
Friday, April 10, 2009
My Point of View
Farmers and Ranchers Should Help Define ‘Sustainable’
By Troy Hadrick
It’s hard to get through the day anymore without hearing the word “sustainable.” In fact, I was recently asked if I was a factory farmer or if I raised cattle sustainably. Who judges what’s sustainable and what isn’t? It seems that the word has been hijacked and is being used by people who are opposed to modern agriculture.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head when you hear the term. When I hear about sustainable wood, it always puzzles me. Are there some trees that don't grow back?
But in food production, we hear more and more that modern agriculture can’t continue down the same path it’s currently on. What exactly led to that false notion, and how would anyone possess the kind of knowledge needed to back up that sweeping statement?
Skeptics say we should go back to how we used to raise crops and livestock. But how far back should we go? To the 1950s? Or how about the 1870s? Maybe we could go back to when everyone raised just their own food?
Broadly, it is frequently true that so-called sustainable practices are those techniques used before the combustion engine was invented. Every industry has adapted and used technology to improve production methods and output. That includes agriculture.
From a farmer’s perspective, there are two questions that should have to be answered before any agricultural practice can truly be considered sustainable. First, will the farm and ranch families implementing the practice be able to generate enough income to continue farming or ranching? Will those families be sustainable? And second, will the practice help producers increase food production to keep up with a growing population? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then, from my perspective, it should not be considered sustainable.
If farmers and ranchers can't make a living, they obviously won't be around very long. That’s not what I would call a sustainable practice. Or if America’s farmers and ranchers are forced to use production methods that do not yield enough food for everyone would you consider that sustainable? I wouldn’t.
At the end of the day, agriculture has a single, yet vital, responsibility -- to provide food, fiber, fuel and other basics of life for an ever-growing world. The agriculture industry that some folks like to envision is better described as nostalgic rather than sustainable or even realistic. Our society wouldn’t have developed into what it is today if 25 percent or more of our workforce was still required to grow food. For the past century, we have continually produced more food with less farm inputs. With the technologies available today, that trend will continue.
American agriculture has a longer track record than any other industry in this country. Many families are producing food on the same land their ancestors did. That is proof of sustainability. Farmers and ranchers know a thing or two about being sustainable since our livelihood depends on it. It’s time we take our word “sustainable” back and encourage everyone to think about and use its real definition.
By Troy Hadrick
It’s hard to get through the day anymore without hearing the word “sustainable.” In fact, I was recently asked if I was a factory farmer or if I raised cattle sustainably. Who judges what’s sustainable and what isn’t? It seems that the word has been hijacked and is being used by people who are opposed to modern agriculture.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head when you hear the term. When I hear about sustainable wood, it always puzzles me. Are there some trees that don't grow back?
But in food production, we hear more and more that modern agriculture can’t continue down the same path it’s currently on. What exactly led to that false notion, and how would anyone possess the kind of knowledge needed to back up that sweeping statement?
Skeptics say we should go back to how we used to raise crops and livestock. But how far back should we go? To the 1950s? Or how about the 1870s? Maybe we could go back to when everyone raised just their own food?
Broadly, it is frequently true that so-called sustainable practices are those techniques used before the combustion engine was invented. Every industry has adapted and used technology to improve production methods and output. That includes agriculture.
From a farmer’s perspective, there are two questions that should have to be answered before any agricultural practice can truly be considered sustainable. First, will the farm and ranch families implementing the practice be able to generate enough income to continue farming or ranching? Will those families be sustainable? And second, will the practice help producers increase food production to keep up with a growing population? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then, from my perspective, it should not be considered sustainable.
If farmers and ranchers can't make a living, they obviously won't be around very long. That’s not what I would call a sustainable practice. Or if America’s farmers and ranchers are forced to use production methods that do not yield enough food for everyone would you consider that sustainable? I wouldn’t.
At the end of the day, agriculture has a single, yet vital, responsibility -- to provide food, fiber, fuel and other basics of life for an ever-growing world. The agriculture industry that some folks like to envision is better described as nostalgic rather than sustainable or even realistic. Our society wouldn’t have developed into what it is today if 25 percent or more of our workforce was still required to grow food. For the past century, we have continually produced more food with less farm inputs. With the technologies available today, that trend will continue.
American agriculture has a longer track record than any other industry in this country. Many families are producing food on the same land their ancestors did. That is proof of sustainability. Farmers and ranchers know a thing or two about being sustainable since our livelihood depends on it. It’s time we take our word “sustainable” back and encourage everyone to think about and use its real definition.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
But Will It Be Enough?
A shorter food chain has many benefits
Supporting local farms, planting home garden would cut use of fossil fuels
By MERIDITH FORD GOLDMAN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Last Saturday morning, in the midst of pancakes and maple syrup, my 12-year-old asked me the importance of Michelle Obama’s planting a garden on the White House’s South Lawn.
It was a most timely question, as I was on my way to the Georgia Organics 12th annual Conference and Trade Show at Agnes Scott College.
And it wouldn’t be until later that evening, after hearing keynote speaker and food writer Michael Pollan deliver his address to roughly 1,100 people, that I would truly be able to answer her.
After attending an upbeat, informative session on starting a farm-to-school program and a brilliant lecture by writer Dan Imnoff on the state of the U.S. food system, I realized we still have a war effort when it comes to the foods we eat.
Those of us who support local, sustainable foods, from chicken to chervil, are at war with big farming. It’s a shame, since throughout the conference speakers gave plenty of examples of small farmers across the country who make the small-farming system work every day.
Read More
“We are at war with big farming.” That is the message of this article. What is big farming? Agriculture’s job is to feed our population with the greatest efficiency. If it’s just a size issue, then where is the labor to accomplish that going to come from? Pollan wants us to farm and ranch the way we did before WWII. If you will recall, food was at a premium then and the population of this country was only around 132 million in 1940. Today our population is well over 300 million. How is that going to work? Pollan refuses to answer that question.
Supporting local farms, planting home garden would cut use of fossil fuels
By MERIDITH FORD GOLDMAN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Last Saturday morning, in the midst of pancakes and maple syrup, my 12-year-old asked me the importance of Michelle Obama’s planting a garden on the White House’s South Lawn.
It was a most timely question, as I was on my way to the Georgia Organics 12th annual Conference and Trade Show at Agnes Scott College.
And it wouldn’t be until later that evening, after hearing keynote speaker and food writer Michael Pollan deliver his address to roughly 1,100 people, that I would truly be able to answer her.
After attending an upbeat, informative session on starting a farm-to-school program and a brilliant lecture by writer Dan Imnoff on the state of the U.S. food system, I realized we still have a war effort when it comes to the foods we eat.
Those of us who support local, sustainable foods, from chicken to chervil, are at war with big farming. It’s a shame, since throughout the conference speakers gave plenty of examples of small farmers across the country who make the small-farming system work every day.
Read More
“We are at war with big farming.” That is the message of this article. What is big farming? Agriculture’s job is to feed our population with the greatest efficiency. If it’s just a size issue, then where is the labor to accomplish that going to come from? Pollan wants us to farm and ranch the way we did before WWII. If you will recall, food was at a premium then and the population of this country was only around 132 million in 1940. Today our population is well over 300 million. How is that going to work? Pollan refuses to answer that question.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sustainability and Profitability
Niman Ranch founder challenges new owners
Stacy Finz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2009
(02-21) 20:05 PST Bolinas - -- Bill Niman built a $65 million empire on a simple idea that revolutionized the food world - that meat could be more than just what's for dinner. It could be raised naturally, humanely and sustainably, better for people and the planet. Niman knew success would take time, but believed his methods would prove profitable.
But in nearly 30 years of existence, despite becoming the darling of high-end chefs and turning the brand into a household name, Niman Ranch never did turn a profit. In fact, it was broke. To save it from Bankruptcy Court, the East Bay company merged last month with its chief investor, Chicago's Natural Food Holdings LLC, and Niman was officially out.
The 64-year-old Bolinas man said he can live with losing the business he built from scratch. But he can't stand quietly by, he says, while the new owners fundamentally change the brand that influenced an entire food movement. He refuses to eat their products. Read More
The reason that I am including this article is because of Niman’s involvement in the Proposition 2 debate in California. They came out and supported this bill which will force people to raise livestock more in line with their thinking. However, is a business really sustainable if they were around for over 30 years and couldn’t turn a profit? Their support of HSUS was also indicative of their ability to run a business because it is quite obvious that HSUS will eventually try to eliminate all animal agriculture. After all, their own people have said that is their goal.
Stacy Finz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2009
(02-21) 20:05 PST Bolinas - -- Bill Niman built a $65 million empire on a simple idea that revolutionized the food world - that meat could be more than just what's for dinner. It could be raised naturally, humanely and sustainably, better for people and the planet. Niman knew success would take time, but believed his methods would prove profitable.
But in nearly 30 years of existence, despite becoming the darling of high-end chefs and turning the brand into a household name, Niman Ranch never did turn a profit. In fact, it was broke. To save it from Bankruptcy Court, the East Bay company merged last month with its chief investor, Chicago's Natural Food Holdings LLC, and Niman was officially out.
The 64-year-old Bolinas man said he can live with losing the business he built from scratch. But he can't stand quietly by, he says, while the new owners fundamentally change the brand that influenced an entire food movement. He refuses to eat their products. Read More
The reason that I am including this article is because of Niman’s involvement in the Proposition 2 debate in California. They came out and supported this bill which will force people to raise livestock more in line with their thinking. However, is a business really sustainable if they were around for over 30 years and couldn’t turn a profit? Their support of HSUS was also indicative of their ability to run a business because it is quite obvious that HSUS will eventually try to eliminate all animal agriculture. After all, their own people have said that is their goal.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Agriculture - Always Improving
Report Finds U.S. Farming Increasingly Sustainable
Jan 18, 2009
Initial findings of a first-of-its-kind report released at the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting suggest that American farms are making progress toward reducing their environmental footprint. The Environmental Resource Indicators report, which evaluated the nation's land use, water use, energy use, soil loss and climate impact in corn, soy, cotton and wheat production over the past two decades, is the work of Field to Market, the Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture.
The initial index shows significant progress in the area of soil-loss efficiency, which has improved by 30 percent to nearly 70 percent for the four crops evaluated. "Soil is the key to sustainable agriculture," said Marty Matlock, area director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability at the University of Arkansas, in a press conference announcing the report last week.
Energy use per unit of output is also down in corn, soybean and cotton production by nearly 40 percent to more than 60 percent. Irrigated water use per unit of output has also decreased 20 percent to nearly 50 percent while carbon emissions per unit of output have dropped by about a third for these three crops. A next-generation report slated for release in mid-2009 will assess water quality and biodiversity indicators.
Experts predict demand for agricultural goods will double by 2050 as the global population increases by an additional three billion people. Agriculture is already the predominant user of all habitable land and 70 percent of fresh water. By 2030, grain-producing land per capita will drop to just a third of what it was in 1950, while the World Water Council predicts in just a decade we will need 17 percent more water than is available to feed the world. Read More
There are a lot of good things to share with the public about agriculture. Unfortunately, it seems the word ‘sustainable’ has been hijacked by people who have the singular mission to eliminate modern agricultural practices. They claim that agriculture can’t feed the world and be sustainable at the same time. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Technology in our industry has always been centered around the premise that we need to raise more food with less inputs. And that is a goal that we have continued to reach and go past.
Jan 18, 2009
Initial findings of a first-of-its-kind report released at the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting suggest that American farms are making progress toward reducing their environmental footprint. The Environmental Resource Indicators report, which evaluated the nation's land use, water use, energy use, soil loss and climate impact in corn, soy, cotton and wheat production over the past two decades, is the work of Field to Market, the Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture.
The initial index shows significant progress in the area of soil-loss efficiency, which has improved by 30 percent to nearly 70 percent for the four crops evaluated. "Soil is the key to sustainable agriculture," said Marty Matlock, area director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability at the University of Arkansas, in a press conference announcing the report last week.
Energy use per unit of output is also down in corn, soybean and cotton production by nearly 40 percent to more than 60 percent. Irrigated water use per unit of output has also decreased 20 percent to nearly 50 percent while carbon emissions per unit of output have dropped by about a third for these three crops. A next-generation report slated for release in mid-2009 will assess water quality and biodiversity indicators.
Experts predict demand for agricultural goods will double by 2050 as the global population increases by an additional three billion people. Agriculture is already the predominant user of all habitable land and 70 percent of fresh water. By 2030, grain-producing land per capita will drop to just a third of what it was in 1950, while the World Water Council predicts in just a decade we will need 17 percent more water than is available to feed the world. Read More
There are a lot of good things to share with the public about agriculture. Unfortunately, it seems the word ‘sustainable’ has been hijacked by people who have the singular mission to eliminate modern agricultural practices. They claim that agriculture can’t feed the world and be sustainable at the same time. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Technology in our industry has always been centered around the premise that we need to raise more food with less inputs. And that is a goal that we have continued to reach and go past.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Food Production
Agriculture's next big challenge
By George McGovern and Marshall Matz
January 4, 2009
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Iowa's former Gov. Tom Vilsack to be his secretary of agriculture. Vilsack was an excellent choice, but some have criticized the appointment because he supports agricultural biotechnology and commercial agriculture. The critics assume that anyone who holds these views is an enemy of organic farming and sustainable agriculture. We disagree.
Norman Borlaug, a Nobel laureate and father of the Green Revolution, has concluded that the world will have to produce more food in the next 50 years than it has in the last 10,000. That is an extraordinary challenge. How does the world do it?
First, we must recognize that organic, sustainable and commercial agriculture play a part in feeding the world. There is an important role for organic agriculture and, indeed, some consumers are willing to pay a premium for foods that are certified as organic. Sustainable agriculture, defined generally as farming that adheres to practices more sensitive to the environment, is also of great importance. Commercial agriculture is still the backbone of the economy in most rural counties across the nation. And commercial agriculture is a big factor in offsetting our unfavorable balance of international trade.
We do not yet see the yields with organic agriculture that would feed a hungry planet of almost 7 billion people. During the recent presidential campaign, Obama, to his credit, often talked of supporting American agriculture, from the small sustainable farms that market to the community to the large commercial farms that feed the world. He was exactly correct. The Department of Agriculture should be supporting research into organic and sustainable agriculture. Clearly, we must be more sensitive to the relationship between agriculture and the environment. But to criticize someone for supporting all sectors of agriculture seems shortsighted. Read More
I have had to read this article a couple of times just to see what I am missing. We don’t normally see someone come out and say that the primary goal of agriculture is to feed people. It’s incredible that we need to say that, but it’s apparent that many people don’t realize this fact. The other line from this story that every consumer needs to understand is that we need to get beyond ideology and use science. We can either spend the next several decades arguing about food and then not have enough, or our society can choose to get down to business and utilize technology, science, and America’s ag producers and double our food production by 2050.
By George McGovern and Marshall Matz
January 4, 2009
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Iowa's former Gov. Tom Vilsack to be his secretary of agriculture. Vilsack was an excellent choice, but some have criticized the appointment because he supports agricultural biotechnology and commercial agriculture. The critics assume that anyone who holds these views is an enemy of organic farming and sustainable agriculture. We disagree.
Norman Borlaug, a Nobel laureate and father of the Green Revolution, has concluded that the world will have to produce more food in the next 50 years than it has in the last 10,000. That is an extraordinary challenge. How does the world do it?
First, we must recognize that organic, sustainable and commercial agriculture play a part in feeding the world. There is an important role for organic agriculture and, indeed, some consumers are willing to pay a premium for foods that are certified as organic. Sustainable agriculture, defined generally as farming that adheres to practices more sensitive to the environment, is also of great importance. Commercial agriculture is still the backbone of the economy in most rural counties across the nation. And commercial agriculture is a big factor in offsetting our unfavorable balance of international trade.
We do not yet see the yields with organic agriculture that would feed a hungry planet of almost 7 billion people. During the recent presidential campaign, Obama, to his credit, often talked of supporting American agriculture, from the small sustainable farms that market to the community to the large commercial farms that feed the world. He was exactly correct. The Department of Agriculture should be supporting research into organic and sustainable agriculture. Clearly, we must be more sensitive to the relationship between agriculture and the environment. But to criticize someone for supporting all sectors of agriculture seems shortsighted. Read More
I have had to read this article a couple of times just to see what I am missing. We don’t normally see someone come out and say that the primary goal of agriculture is to feed people. It’s incredible that we need to say that, but it’s apparent that many people don’t realize this fact. The other line from this story that every consumer needs to understand is that we need to get beyond ideology and use science. We can either spend the next several decades arguing about food and then not have enough, or our society can choose to get down to business and utilize technology, science, and America’s ag producers and double our food production by 2050.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)