oija - 2019-02-07 11:03 PM

Actually beef do have a pretty strong environmental impact aside from the methane they produce, which is more than other livestock because they are ruminants. In general, the amount of physical waste they also produce can negatively impact ground water and drinking water too without the right regulations. I am not about to stop eating steak and think that lady’s net zero idea is a bit bonkers. But I don’t disagree that we need some regulation in the industry for the health of people around farms and feedlots and the environment too. The person who wrote that article is honestly kind of a nasty insulting one sided writer. In her own way she is as extreme and ridiculous as the people she is attempting to call out.

oija - 2019-02-07 11:03 PM

Actually beef do have a pretty strong environmental impact aside from the methane they produce, which is more than other livestock because they are ruminants. In general, the amount of physical waste they also produce can negatively impact ground water and drinking water too without the right regulations. I am not about to stop eating steak and think that lady’s net zero idea is a bit bonkers. But I don’t disagree that we need some regulation in the industry for the health of people around farms and feedlots and the environment too. The person who wrote that article is honestly kind of a nasty insulting one sided writer. In her own way she is as extreme and ridiculous as the people she is attempting to call out.

BS Hauler - 2019-02-08 10:08 AM

How did this country survive when millions upon millions of buffalo roamed this country and farted..

Bear - 2019-02-08 11:23 AM This whole idea of farts being an existential threat to humanity just blows my mind. A few years ago I thought the idea was a bizarre joke, but people are taking it seriously. Methane production has supposedly increased over the last 200-300 years. They attribute this to cow farts, landfills, fossil fuels, burning of anything (ie forest fires, campfires, etc...), wetlands, etc.... The environmentalists claim that methane is one of the significant factors in global WARMING. Over the last 4 decades, we have gone from “the coming ice age” (global “cooling”), to global “warming”, and now we have the catch-all phrase, “climate change”. The reason for this new environmentalist fad du jour is because the fact that our climate is always changing cannot be denied.....earth’s climate has always been changing...always. The reason why environmentalists have tried to get away from “global warming” in recent years is because the dirty little secret is that we have seen a hiatus in global “warming” over the last 20+ years. Anecdotally, most of us are probably calling into question the existence of global warming, in light of the record cold winter we’ve experienced in many states. Overall, even NOAA has admitted we haven’t had any global warming in two decades. The climate alarmists go to great lengths to painfully try to explain this away, but most people are baffled. This throws a monkey wrench into their agenda. I think the real underlying agenda stems from an insatiable quest for political power. Whenever science allows itself to be intertwined with politics, science itself gets called into question, and the perception of scientific validity is weakened in the court of public opinion. Shame on science. Few people question the broad claim that we are experiencing “climate change”.....as I said, we’ve always had it. The real question, as I see it, is whether or not man’s activities have contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to “climate change”. Showing rising CO2 and methane levels and concluding that this is a significant factor in “climate change” is a huge leap, based on the well recognized logical fallacy that “correlation implies causation”. The truth of the matter is that correlation does NOT imply causation. Here’s an example of correlation NOT implying causation: For years epidemiologists have told us that women on hormone replacement therapy have a lower incidence of coronary artery disease. This was based on retrospective data. Prospective trials have subsequently have shown that women on hormone replacement therapy, long term, experience a small, but statistically significant INCREASE in coronary artery disease. Bottom line for me on climate change and human activity: I’m not convinced, and therefore am not ready to impose carbon taxes, abandon cows, and drive $100,000 electric cars that don’t work when temperatures get below freezing.

foundation horse - 2019-02-08 5:15 AM


Animal manure is some of the best Agricultural Fertilizer in existence. And it is ALL Natural. No chemicals added!

oija - 2019-02-08 12:03 AM Actually beef do have a pretty strong environmental impact aside from the methane they produce, which is more than other livestock because they are ruminants. In general, the amount of physical waste they also produce can negatively impact ground water and drinking water too without the right regulations. I am not about to stop eating steak and think that lady’s net zero idea is a bit bonkers. But I don’t disagree that we need some regulation in the industry for the health of people around farms and feedlots and the environment too. The person who wrote that article is honestly kind of a nasty insulting one sided writer. In her own way she is as extreme and ridiculous as the people she is attempting to call out.

Frodo - 2019-02-08 6:48 AM

People do these same things.......fart and produce waste.  What the heck are we going to do about that?

 

3canstorun - 2019-02-08 10:42 AM


When it comes to the health of the people that live around the farms -   It's kinda like our neighbors moving next to the farm.  With 70 year old groves.  They want to know if we can only water at certain times because they don't like the sound of the irrigation.  Really, your ass moved there last year.  The trees were there 69 years before you. 

I do agree we maybe we can find a way to recyle more waste products.  But don't move next door to it and then complain.  You knew what you were getting into when you bought the property.  Rant over.   

BS Hauler - 2019-02-08 10:08 AM

How did this country survive when millions upon millions of buffalo roamed this country and farted..

FlyingJT - 2019-02-08 9:51 AM


They currently have and are still working on what they call Methane Digesters. I think it's an amazing idea, cuts Methane Emissions, powers the farms, and they could actually sell the excess energy if they produce enough. Problem... it costs 1.5 million to be installed. Small farms just can't afford it to even get started.

Why don't the Dems dump money into that industry to come up with more affordable means for these small farms to invest in these? Incentives to encourage farms to participate and regulations for large dairies and feed yards to comply with.

That's a more logical and realistic solution that people on both sides of the isle could come up with an agreement on. They won't however, because that wouldn't keep the country divided and keep them in office.

We need common sense back in politics!

Bear - 2019-02-08 10:23 AM

This whole idea of farts being an existential threat to humanity just blows my mind. A few years ago I thought the idea was a bizarre joke, but people are taking it seriously.
Methane production has supposedly increased over the last 200-300 years. They attribute this to cow farts, landfills, fossil fuels, burning of anything (ie forest fires, campfires, etc...), wetlands, etc....
The environmentalists claim that methane is one of the significant factors in global WARMING. Over the last 4 decades, we have gone from “the coming ice age” (global “cooling”), to global “warming”, and now we have the catch-all phrase, “climate change”. The reason for this new environmentalist fad du jour is because the fact that our climate is always changing cannot be denied.....earth’s climate has always been changing...always. The reason why environmentalists
have tried to get away from “global warming” in recent years is because the dirty little secret is that we have seen a hiatus in global “warming” over the last 20+ years. Anecdotally, most of us are probably calling into question the existence of global warming, in light of the record cold winter we’ve experienced in many states.
Overall, even NOAA has admitted we haven’t had any global warming in two decades. The climate alarmists go to great lengths to painfully try to explain this away, but most people are baffled. This throws a monkey wrench into their agenda.
I think the real underlying agenda stems from an insatiable quest for political power. Whenever science allows itself to be intertwined with politics, science itself gets called into question, and the perception of scientific validity is weakened in the court of public opinion. Shame on science.
Few people question the broad claim that we are experiencing “climate change”.....as I said, we’ve always had it. The real question, as I see it, is whether or not man’s activities have contributed SIGNIFICANTLY to “climate change”. Showing rising CO2 and methane levels and concluding that this is a significant factor in “climate change” is a huge leap, based on the well recognized logical fallacy that “correlation implies causation”.
The truth of the matter is that correlation does NOT imply causation.

Here’s an example of correlation NOT implying causation:

For years epidemiologists have told us that women on hormone replacement therapy have a lower incidence of coronary artery disease. This was based on retrospective data. Prospective trials have subsequently have shown that women on hormone replacement therapy, long term, experience a small, but statistically significant INCREASE in coronary artery disease.

Bottom line for me on climate change and human activity: I’m not convinced, and therefore am not ready to impose carbon taxes, abandon cows, and drive $100,000 electric cars that don’t work when temperatures get below freezing.

oija - 2019-02-08 10:42 AM


Hahaha and you want it in your drinking water?