Old Dog/New Tricks
Well-known member
FYI - A different (Positive) look at Ag - by a Critic
My Note: Needs a Proof Reader - But then I'm one to talk!
Daily News item from Meatingplace.com
V_Key - This item was sent to you by: Richard ([email protected])
THE VOCAL POINT: Finding a link between food producers and their critics
by Dan Murphy on Friday, October 06, 2006
One truth about modern culture: There are certain people – and certain organizations – that we love to hate.
We (understandably) cheer when eco-activists get slapped into prison – as was the case here this week with the sentencing of Earth Liberation Front members Jennifer Kolar and Lacey Phillabaum, who received five-to-seven and three-to-five year federal prison sentences, respectively, for firebombing the University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture (which supported local urban gardening programs – go figure).
We revel whenever food-industry critics get roughed up by mainstream media, as has happened with nearly all of the "we-were-just-kidding" campaigns the operatives at PETA keep trying to generate to forward their ridiculously absurd "leave the animals alone" mission.
And rarely does a week go by that somebody, somewhere isn't searching for an opening to hammer some (allegedly) liberal think tank into submission whenever their message seems to conflict with the status quo.
That latter group certainly includes the Worldwatch Institute, which was founded by Lester Brown, author of more than a dozen books exploring global environmental issues and one of the proponents of a "doom-and-gloom" philosophy regarding resource utilization.
Brown never fails to trigger angry rebuttals whenever his positions are articulated. A typical response was distributed recently by Stewart Truelsen, director of broadcast services for American Farm Bureau Federation, who characterized Worldwatch's "agenda for a new world order" as one that includes the elimination of livestock production.
Surprisingly for food-industry leaders who find fault with the entire premise of agricultural critics like those at the Worldwatch Institute, Brown himself started his career as a New Jersey tomato farmer, later earning a degree in ag science and serving as a USDA administrator in the 1960s.
In fact, a reading of Worldwatch's latest review of global eco-issues, titled, "Vital Signs 2006-2007," predicts that production and consumption of meat and poultry worldwide will continue to rise, fueled in large measure by increases in production in developing countries, which now produce more than 50 percent (beef) and 62 percent (pork) of global tonnage.
Of course, there is plenty of negative commentary in the report about factory farming and dead zones and soil depletion and emerging threats to human health from looming pandemics such as avian flu. But there is one huge intersection between the "alternative agenda" and convention agricultural production that my not only provide fertile ground for future farm profitability but soften – somewhat – the heated rhetoric that often envelops the debate over how best to feed the billions of people on planet Earth.
I recently had the chance to sit down with Christopher Flavin, Worldwatch president and co-author with Brown of a number of publications, to talk about the convergence of the activist agenda with the objectives of modern livestock and food producers.
His comments were enlightening and instructive, I thought, of how and where a common agenda might be forged between the food industry and its critics.
Meatingplace.com: For starters, Worldwatch has been highly critical of so-called industrialized farming in its recent Vital Signs report. Are you opposed to conventional agriculture?
Flavin: No, of course not. But I would point out that the structure of agriculture, becoming heavily concentrated at all levels of food production, isn't the ideal model to provide the kind of solutions that are going to be needed I the years to come.
Meatingplace.com: What do you mean?
Flavin: Well, take energy production, because that is where I think agriculture already is having a huge impact on policies in this country and around the world. Everyone has read that Brazil has achieved virtual energy independence from imported oil by harnessing its sugar cane crop to produce ethanol. What people don't realize is that the U.S. is poised to surpass Brazil in the production of biofuels in the next few years.
Meatingplace.com: That's positive, isn't it?
Flavin: Yes, but because we have not only a concentration of larger corporate entities – and large-scale farming – coupled with government subsidies that support commodity crop production, the drive has been to produce ethanol from corn. That's a centralized approach to energy production most scientists regard with skepticism. It would be far better to focus on biodiesel, which can be produced from a number of crops. But large-scale production would require a larger base of smaller, specialty farmers than we seem to be able to support.
Meatingplace.com: Worldwatch considers global warming as a crisis waiting to happen, with fossil fuel use – including ag-related consumption – as the chief culprit. Yet you personally profess optimism that a reinvention of energy production can effect positive improvement in CO2 emissions, in agricultural profitability and even on geo-politics. Why?
Flavin: Because alternative energy has reached a tipping point. Or maybe I should say that petroleum extraction and refining has reached a tipping point. For example, China has now become the world's biggest generator of electricity through solar collectors. Brazil, as we discussed, has become energy independent through manufacturing biofuels. And when you see both venture capitalists and investment houses like Goldman Sachs pouring billions into alternative energy development, that tells anyone who's paying attention that we're on the brink of an exciting new era. In the 1890s, John D. Rockerfeller pioneered the Oil Age before we even realized it was happening. Today's renewable and bio-produced energy pioneers are in the exact same position.
Meatingplace.com: What needs to happen to accelerate that development?
Flavin: For one, we need to curtail, and possibly re-direct, the federal subsidies that currently do nothing other than sustain cheap commodity exports for U.S. farmers. That includes the meat industry, since they benefit from cheap corn and grain prices. But I believe that process may happen on its own.
Meatingplace.com: How so?
Flavin: The current farm programs are basically price supports. As production goes up, prices go down, and the government steps in to prop up the market. However, if biofuel production truly takes off, as it already has to a certain degree, then it's easy to postulate the commodity prices could rise significantly, which would simply allow market-support subsidies to go away.
Meatingplace.com: Finally, do you see so-called "low tech," on-farm energy production, whether from methane capture or from small-scale biofuel production, as a significant mitigator of climate change?
Flavin: I can't say that I know how that scenario might develop, but I believe that if agriculture and lives tock production – not just in this country – gains independence from fossil fuel inputs, that would be tremendously positive for the environment, for global warming and for the farm economy itself. There are no certainties about the future, but when I hear venture capitalists telling me that they are "eagerly" seeking biofuel ventures to support, I take that as a very encouraging sign that agriculture will be contributing to the solution, not the problems, we face on a number of crucial environmental issues -----
My Note: Needs a Proof Reader - But then I'm one to talk!
Daily News item from Meatingplace.com
V_Key - This item was sent to you by: Richard ([email protected])
THE VOCAL POINT: Finding a link between food producers and their critics
by Dan Murphy on Friday, October 06, 2006
One truth about modern culture: There are certain people – and certain organizations – that we love to hate.
We (understandably) cheer when eco-activists get slapped into prison – as was the case here this week with the sentencing of Earth Liberation Front members Jennifer Kolar and Lacey Phillabaum, who received five-to-seven and three-to-five year federal prison sentences, respectively, for firebombing the University of Washington Center for Urban Horticulture (which supported local urban gardening programs – go figure).
We revel whenever food-industry critics get roughed up by mainstream media, as has happened with nearly all of the "we-were-just-kidding" campaigns the operatives at PETA keep trying to generate to forward their ridiculously absurd "leave the animals alone" mission.
And rarely does a week go by that somebody, somewhere isn't searching for an opening to hammer some (allegedly) liberal think tank into submission whenever their message seems to conflict with the status quo.
That latter group certainly includes the Worldwatch Institute, which was founded by Lester Brown, author of more than a dozen books exploring global environmental issues and one of the proponents of a "doom-and-gloom" philosophy regarding resource utilization.
Brown never fails to trigger angry rebuttals whenever his positions are articulated. A typical response was distributed recently by Stewart Truelsen, director of broadcast services for American Farm Bureau Federation, who characterized Worldwatch's "agenda for a new world order" as one that includes the elimination of livestock production.
Surprisingly for food-industry leaders who find fault with the entire premise of agricultural critics like those at the Worldwatch Institute, Brown himself started his career as a New Jersey tomato farmer, later earning a degree in ag science and serving as a USDA administrator in the 1960s.
In fact, a reading of Worldwatch's latest review of global eco-issues, titled, "Vital Signs 2006-2007," predicts that production and consumption of meat and poultry worldwide will continue to rise, fueled in large measure by increases in production in developing countries, which now produce more than 50 percent (beef) and 62 percent (pork) of global tonnage.
Of course, there is plenty of negative commentary in the report about factory farming and dead zones and soil depletion and emerging threats to human health from looming pandemics such as avian flu. But there is one huge intersection between the "alternative agenda" and convention agricultural production that my not only provide fertile ground for future farm profitability but soften – somewhat – the heated rhetoric that often envelops the debate over how best to feed the billions of people on planet Earth.
I recently had the chance to sit down with Christopher Flavin, Worldwatch president and co-author with Brown of a number of publications, to talk about the convergence of the activist agenda with the objectives of modern livestock and food producers.
His comments were enlightening and instructive, I thought, of how and where a common agenda might be forged between the food industry and its critics.
Meatingplace.com: For starters, Worldwatch has been highly critical of so-called industrialized farming in its recent Vital Signs report. Are you opposed to conventional agriculture?
Flavin: No, of course not. But I would point out that the structure of agriculture, becoming heavily concentrated at all levels of food production, isn't the ideal model to provide the kind of solutions that are going to be needed I the years to come.
Meatingplace.com: What do you mean?
Flavin: Well, take energy production, because that is where I think agriculture already is having a huge impact on policies in this country and around the world. Everyone has read that Brazil has achieved virtual energy independence from imported oil by harnessing its sugar cane crop to produce ethanol. What people don't realize is that the U.S. is poised to surpass Brazil in the production of biofuels in the next few years.
Meatingplace.com: That's positive, isn't it?
Flavin: Yes, but because we have not only a concentration of larger corporate entities – and large-scale farming – coupled with government subsidies that support commodity crop production, the drive has been to produce ethanol from corn. That's a centralized approach to energy production most scientists regard with skepticism. It would be far better to focus on biodiesel, which can be produced from a number of crops. But large-scale production would require a larger base of smaller, specialty farmers than we seem to be able to support.
Meatingplace.com: Worldwatch considers global warming as a crisis waiting to happen, with fossil fuel use – including ag-related consumption – as the chief culprit. Yet you personally profess optimism that a reinvention of energy production can effect positive improvement in CO2 emissions, in agricultural profitability and even on geo-politics. Why?
Flavin: Because alternative energy has reached a tipping point. Or maybe I should say that petroleum extraction and refining has reached a tipping point. For example, China has now become the world's biggest generator of electricity through solar collectors. Brazil, as we discussed, has become energy independent through manufacturing biofuels. And when you see both venture capitalists and investment houses like Goldman Sachs pouring billions into alternative energy development, that tells anyone who's paying attention that we're on the brink of an exciting new era. In the 1890s, John D. Rockerfeller pioneered the Oil Age before we even realized it was happening. Today's renewable and bio-produced energy pioneers are in the exact same position.
Meatingplace.com: What needs to happen to accelerate that development?
Flavin: For one, we need to curtail, and possibly re-direct, the federal subsidies that currently do nothing other than sustain cheap commodity exports for U.S. farmers. That includes the meat industry, since they benefit from cheap corn and grain prices. But I believe that process may happen on its own.
Meatingplace.com: How so?
Flavin: The current farm programs are basically price supports. As production goes up, prices go down, and the government steps in to prop up the market. However, if biofuel production truly takes off, as it already has to a certain degree, then it's easy to postulate the commodity prices could rise significantly, which would simply allow market-support subsidies to go away.
Meatingplace.com: Finally, do you see so-called "low tech," on-farm energy production, whether from methane capture or from small-scale biofuel production, as a significant mitigator of climate change?
Flavin: I can't say that I know how that scenario might develop, but I believe that if agriculture and lives tock production – not just in this country – gains independence from fossil fuel inputs, that would be tremendously positive for the environment, for global warming and for the farm economy itself. There are no certainties about the future, but when I hear venture capitalists telling me that they are "eagerly" seeking biofuel ventures to support, I take that as a very encouraging sign that agriculture will be contributing to the solution, not the problems, we face on a number of crucial environmental issues -----
