|
|
Is it Bessie or Bambi
In the past five years while speaking to groups of cattlemen (dairy or beef), I have referenced the thousands of dollars that land grant universities were spending on research to determine the cows contribution to global warming. The best response I got was a unified snickering. Well, today I can find you a major news story every day discussing how the number one culprit of global warming is the COW. It certainly has accelerated since November of last year when the United Nations released a report indicating the cow now provides more greenhouse gases (GHG) to our environment than fossil fuel combustion through transportation. How can that be, you ask? Here is an example from a recent Miami Herald. Scientists say deforestation, almost always to facilitate planting crops and raising cattle, accounts for about 20 percent of the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Environmentalists are pushing to allow countries and companies to offset their emissions by paying to preserve forests elsewhere, such as in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Group of Eight nations, meeting in Germany earlier this month, pledged to help poor countries reduce deforestation to provide "a significant and cost-effective contribution toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions." Researchers say forest is being increasingly cleared to make way for big cattle ranches and large soybean farms--especially in Brazil, which accounts for about 60 percent of the forest land in Latin America and the Caribbean. The amount of forest lost each year from 2000 to 2005 averaged 11,077,734 acres, the study showed--about the size of Maryland. Now let's point out that the assumption is being made that even soybean acres are being planted in order to feed the cow and not people. Oh, I don't make that comment in passing. In fact, we can document that the economic growth of China and their demand for soy is contributing greatly to deforestation. No one can argue that deforestation is still occurring in places that it shouldn't be. I think we all understand that the forest is a vital part of proper planet health. But the real story must be evaluated. At risk of sounding like a flag waving patriot, let's take a closer look at what is going on here at home. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report in April 2006 entitled "U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks," which contains data through 2004. This report indicates U.S. livestock grazing, feeding and manure management systems are superior to those elsewhere in the world. EPA data did show that production of food animals in the United States contributes less than 2.4 percent of total GHG emissions (measured in CO2 equivalent). In comparison, fossil fuel combustion contributes approximately 80 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture tells us that there are 748 million acres of forest in the continental United States. U.S. Forest Service archives show that in 1920, there were 732 million acres of U.S. forestland. Therefore, according to 2003 figures, the United States has 16 million more acres of forestland than it did in 1920. Yes, the truth of the matter is that in the United States, where we lose nearly 2 million acres of prime farmland to concrete, condos and consumers annually, (concrete manufactures rank higher on the list of GHG contributors than livestock by the way) we have managed the natural resources in a manner such that today our environment is better off than it has ever been. The problem is that elected officials will not take the time to really break down the United Nations report to uncover the truth. The truth being the United States is the shining example of how we can utilize resources without negative impact to the planet. A perfect example is the fact that we have the same number of beef cows that we had in 1955, yet we produce twice as much human consumable beef. No, you don't need to have a keen understanding of science to figure out how much better off our natural resources are either. Let's use a little cowboy logic. In 1930, the population of deer in the United States was 300,000. Recent estimates put the deer population in the United States at around 30 million. These changes were so successful that, in their range, the white-tailed deer populations currently far exceed their carrying capacity and the animal is considered a nuisance. Could the deer population grow at that rate in an adverse environment? Absolutely not! Oh, wait--Deer too emit enteric fermentation. Quick, notify the United Nations. Improved environmental conditions in the United States have allowed deer to create more GHG's than at any time in the history of the world. Editor's note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail Trent at trent@loostales.com. Date: 7/19/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
