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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)