Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Race To Develop Livestock That Can Survive Climate Change
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Evan Halper writes in the LA Times that with efforts to reduce carbon emissions lagging, researchers, backed by millions of dollars from the federal government, are looking for ways to protect key industries from the impact of climate change by racing to develop new breeds of farm animals that can stand up to the hazards of global warming. ""We are dealing with the challenge of difficult weather conditions at the same time we have to massively increase food production" to accommodate larger populations and a growing demand for meat, says Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. For example a team of researchers is trying to map the genetic code of bizarre-looking African naked-neck chickens to see if their ability to withstand heat can be bred into flocks of US broilers. "The game is changing since the climate is changing," says Carl Schmidt. "We have to start now to anticipate what changes we have to make in order to feed 9 billion people," citing global-population estimates for 2050." (More below.)
"Warmer temperatures can create huge problems for animals farmed for food. Turkeys are vulnerable to a condition that makes their breast meat mushy and unappetizing. Disease rips through chicken coops. Brutal weather can claim entire cattle herds. Some climate experts, however, question the federal government's emphasis on keeping pace with a projected growing global appetite for meat. Because raising animals demands so many resources, the only viable way to hit global targets for greenhouse gas reduction may be to encourage people to eat less meat and point to an approach backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates that takes animals out the process altogether. "There's no way to produce enough meat for 9 billion people," says Bill Gates. "Yet we can't ask everyone to become vegetarians. We need more options for producing meat without depleting our resources.""
It is NOT climate change anymore. It is called climate disruption.
http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
and also....first post.
So the basic idea is : Cows produce methane that participates to the global warming. But because cows might not survive the climate change, we are going to create super-cows than are immune to this self-regulating mechanism instead of let's say switch to bugs.
Really sounds like a great idea.
I imagine that when we have really screwd the climate for us, we will have to come up with genetically engineered human beings that will drive heavily modified cars that are working OK when it's 60C.
Are you kidding? Earth's atmosphere is:
78% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen
1% everything else and of that 1%, 93% is argon and 3.6% of that 1% is CO2, that is how little CO2 is actually in the atmosphere, and CO2 is a necessary ingredient for plant life. Google CO2 generators and you will see that they are for sale to increase plant growth in green houses and aquariums. More plant growth = more food for humans.
It's long past time that we got out of the nationalist, playground bully mentality that we're stuck in, and start collectively working together to address global warming, resource depletion, and the fact that we will go extinct much sooner if we don't start looking at ways to get off of the Earth permanently. I don't really know how to get that ball rolling, except to say that people need to start decoupling these issues from politics and moral/religious squabbles, and recognize that it's a matter of shared survival.
We've already passed "Peak Child" and the human race is in decline. So, the premise that we need to ramp up food production to cope with a growing population is a false one. If there's not enough meat for everyone in the short term, we feed the young and able bodied first, then the parents of the young and able bodied, then whoever is left, in that order.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Thought the solution for future food production was worms and algae. In any case smaller animals. Throw the basic stuff in a blender, add some chemicals to alter taste and color, fit it into a convenient shape and the general consumer won't care what it's made off.
what is the issue here?
all animal species alive now have survived all climate changes in the past.
Already, chickens are about 10x more efficient for production of meat calories than beef is. Most of the world does not consume milk like European descendants do. 40% of the world's arable land is already being used for agriculture. Red meat offers very little and is harmful to the human body in many ways.
I'd prefer we just leave beef alone, let the price increase as demand increases, and place artificial limits on production. Seems like everyone would be better off, and the environment would be as well.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Good Sub :)
egymodrn.blogspot.com
Funding for this will be determined by which group hires the most union workers that donate to the DNC, or which group is run by individuals with long track records of giving to the DNC. The previous owners of Solyndra is currently in the front running to get the federal funding.
No results are expected in the advancement of science for this. Obama was quoted as saying "If you like your cows you can keep them, period".
Now can we admit this who AGW thing is just a money grab for the DNC?
That's our stupid government for ya. Our own actions (power generation, industry, etc.) are causing the problem of global climate disruptions but instead of changing how we do business (lower or eliminate carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions) our industrious leaders come up with hair-brained plans to genetically alter our food-stock. Idiots. It's time to add some Chlorine to the government gene-pool.
Unbounded population growth can only end in misery. Maybe there is enough food to go around for 6 billion, even long after peak oil. Maybe there is enough for 9 billion. Who knows. But there certainly is a number where it doesn't work anymore and then it's going to be gruesome. Let's not go there.
So can I finally look forward to the legendary turducken then? I'll have a flying car first at this rate.
Hate to be the one to point out the obvious... but the solution is not in changing the meat it is in reducing and/or eliminating the meat. A very large part of world has done very well for a very long time on limited or no meat, eating beans and rice, lentils and rice, and tofu and rice. Meat requires vast quantities of water, creates vast quantities of waste, and is a huge caloric loss if you are feeding the animal grains or other foodstuffs that humans can eat directly. Beef being the worst offender for water use, and pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Vegans and vegetarians can and have lived perfectly normal and healthy lives. Often times far longer than their meat-gorging counterparts.
To stand up and state we must fix this problem, as if the meat industry is somehow absolutely necessary for the human race to survive is nonsense, and reflects poorly on the person stating it (yeah, that would be you, Bill).
And yes, I realize we would likely shift food shortages to plants by doing so, but I'm willing to bet we can make a plant better suited for climate change far easier than we can modify a much more complex organism that evolved over thousands of years to the climate today.
Greed won't allow this to happen. We're not allowed to even speak badly against this industry that we cannot label corrupt.
We need to enforce some type of human birth licensing system to stop all population growth and ideally reduce our population to pre 1900's levels; Using modern technology and a world population near that which is/was sustainable before it(tech) could/should produce a world with excess resources, no accelerated global warming, no starvation, and at least eliminate resource based wars.
After millions of years of climates that change and disrupt the critters seem to be handling it all pretty well on their own.
I would simply buy some land a little farther north.
Or maybe it's not such a big problem.
More than 7,000 years ago, domesticated cattle appeared along the Tigris and Euphrates river valley, the origin of the first agricultural society of the Sumerians. The ancient Egyptians made cheese, and Isis, the Egyptian goddess and patroness of agriculture, is often represented as a woman with the horns of a cow, a sacred animal.
http://www.floridamilk.com/dai...
Isn't it hot there?
They could just use Guineafowl. They're native to warm climates, breed more prolifically than chickens (EG: produce more eggs), about the same body, taste the same.
Guessing someone just needed grant money and a way to scare people. Since asking a poultry farmer was too cheap and easy a solution.
The Evolutionist believes that we (whatever you want "we" to be) change and adapt to the changing surroundings.. Right?
Then why are they running around claiming that Evolution won't take care of this "Global Warming". "Climate Change", "Climate Disruption" thingy?
Evolution has always taken care of change before, the Evolutionist says.
Why not now?
Why should we worry?
Did the dinosaurs worry?
Why should we?
...to become vegetarians or vegans.
I promise you it'll happen naturally as scientists keep screwing around genetically modifying our meat until that deadly strain of bird/cow/pig flu manages to get carried into the masses as a result and wipes out half the planet.
People won't touch anything that has beaks or hooves ever again.
Yawn, yawn! Long ago, the human race breed cattle for hotter (Brahman) and colder (Scottish Highlander) temperatures. These scientist are simply scrambling in a most unseemly fashion after grant money being dumped out irresponsibly by our deficit-ridden federal government.
In fact, the entire global warming/climate change/climate disruption hysteria has been yet another illustration of scientists who lack integrity scrambling after grant money. The reasons has been, "If I have to say X to get money, then I will say X." Pitiful.
President Eisenhower warned of precisely this in his Farewell Address noting: "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
The one paying the fiddler is calling the tune.
Is there a sweetheart deal for Slashdot's owners to post every deranged end-of-the-world scare story from HughPickens?
Inquiring minds would like to know, because every single scare story has been rebutted many times (although Slashdot never gets to see those stories because the debunkers are in league with the devil/big oil/republicans/illuminati/adam sandler (delete as appropriate))
The modern term for this is "motivated reasoning" but in the past it was called "moral hazard" or "moral depravity". Different words, same result - an attack on the motivation of the person who denies the coming Apocalypse/Judgement Day/Zombie Outbreak (delete as appropriate)
In Russia they have a word for this: Lysenkoism
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
hard to believe cart on top of the horse process http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather+pollution 'scientists'? more like psychopathic megalomaniacs
Aren't they starting at the wrong end of the food chain? Or have they already verified that all the organisms on which livestock depend will be able to survive?
all animal species alive now have survived all climate changes in the past.
But almost no animal species alive in the past have survived all the climate changes in the past.
More seriously, they want to optimize meat per dollar taking into account projections of future climate. A current cow would probably do well but be suboptimal. Normal economics at work, nothing to see here.
buoyant cows with webbed feet like a duck, do the same for pigs, goats, sheep and chickens
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Sheep do just fine in bitter evil cold and 120 degree summers. Certain long hair breeds of goats as well.
Problem is a lot of the long hair cows have been bread away to the easy to care for short hair. and there are chicken breeds that do fine.
Lastly pigs, just start with wild pigs instead of the naked ones we have that only exist for easy cleaning.
Rabbits are also very hearty and are perfect livestock.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You want a side of cactus fries with that?
Gently reply
Latitude.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
LOL "grant money". Oh, this magical, bottomless well of moolah that exists solely to tempt scientists into lying for decades. I'll bet energy companies had wished they'd thought of that! Those poor, struggling corporations dream of someday being able to bribe scientists and op-ed writers and politicians to make dishonest statements that benefit their bottom line. But you know, greed and profit just aren't motivators for dishonesty the way... Uh.... "grant money" is??? (Oh, right, I forgot, those evil liberals want to be enslaved by the government and to destroy America forever. That's actually why liberals do anything. Totally makes sense as a motivation.)
sssshhht, you are revealing that "climate change" is just an euphemism for "the sky is falling". Here, have some grant money and stop spreading doubts to human livestock.
Came here to see AC shills with the "Climate Change is made up to make scientists money!" tripe. Was not disappointed. Stupid thoudandaire scientists and their luxury yachts! Sucking on the government teat
I have to wonder , I always see such uneducated comment in global warming thread. In the mean time I have come to the conclusion that people truly never try to educate themselves, they grasp at the slightest of the information they might have overheard in their live, without checking if that experience is actually supported, then stick to it forever.
To the op, it is not about absolute quantity but about relative effect. A very small change in CO2 is enough to retain much more warmth (trap IR longer). Same with other molecules by the way , like CH4, SF6... Only the half life of those limit their effect. But why bother, you (or any of the ignorant posting the same drivel) will simply skip it and post their ignorance again at the next GW thread.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
humanity throws away half of the food produced.
wake me up when we get real, please!
From the summary - "researchers, backed by millions of dollars from the federal government, are looking for ways to protect key industries from the impact of climate change by racing to develop new breeds of farm animals that can stand up to the hazards of global warming."
I think he meant to say, "researchers, lured by millions of dollars from the federal government, are looking for ways to win federal grants related to climate change and are racing to suck up as much money from the feds as they can under the rubric of fixing the hazards of global warming."
Pretty soon, the inter glacial will be over, so mankind would be better served by research into livestock that can survive an ice age.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
A 10% increase in atmospheric CO2 does not equate to a 10% increase in temperature. Not by a long shot. According to the IPCC, a _DOUBLING_ of CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature of between 1.5 and 3 degrees. (With a lot of debate as to where this number lies. The IPCC itself has declined to issue a "best guess").
The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is somewhere between 2-3 ppm/year. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth) At this rate, (and even taking into account that there is acceleration in the rate), the 400ppm will double in somewhere around 130 years.
So even at the more extreme case (3 degrees per doubling of CO2), we are looking at 1 degree increase in temp every 43 years.
I'm not really certain that this equates to a "race" to get poultry to adapt. (Especially if it would just mean a slow migration of poultry farming to more northern areas.)
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
They already tried that with lead in the gasoline but it was eventually proven that the lead in the gasoline was contaminating the environment so it had to come out.
But what's needed isn't more research into better form of carbon fuel use but alternatives like Thorium for the base demand and better batteries to store the excess from solar and wind generated power and to power things like cars and trucks. Once you can create a battery that is as energy dense as gasoline, can be recharged as quickly as a gasoline tank can be filled and costs no more to build and operate than an internal combustion engine then you'll have no reason to hold onto the old carbon fuelled economy.
develop new breeds of farm animals that can stand up to the hazards of global warming.
Currently we graze cattle from the frozen plains of North Dakota to the deserts of Africa. From the dry lands of Texas to the Alpine mountains of Vevey, Switzerland. From the Northern outback in Australia to the Amazon jungle of Manaus.
It seems to me that we already have the breeds for all possible climates and the whole article is just scientists doing whipping up yet another crisis to score more funding.
Switch to vegetarian, it solves a WHOLE lot of problems: from the environment, health, sustainability, economics, efficiency, and moral issues to boot.
But the consumers may not like seeing herds of cattle and chickens replaced by giant cockroaches. We need to think of a new name for them, and perhaps give them some kind of fancy hats.
(wait for it) ... how will we cook 'em?
Hm...I'm breeding livestock that can survive B.S. Maybe we should combine efforts.
What a load of frog shit!.
Seriously, don't pay any attention to the beautiful mathematics and painstaking research that created the dancing hurricanes on the screen and go straight to the quote at the end of that Ted talk, roughly translated into politics, it means you're a luddite using creationist debating tactics.
Do you not realise that these models work on the same finite element analysis techniques and "physical laws" (mathematical models) used to successfully model everything from atomic bombs, to the flow of molten metal in an engine block cast. These everyday and exotic engineering models are so successful that over the last 30yrs (just over half my lifetime) it has become virtually impossible to finance an engineering project without them. And if you do realise that, then why are you so quick to argue these methods cannot provide useful insights into the behaviour of Earth's climate but are presumably ok with passenger jets flying around that were designed by these techniques? Perhaps Boeing added one molecule too many to the missing jet's wing tip? Turbulence is the physical manifestation of chaos , so it's like totally unpredictable, right? - Please, give rational discussion a fucking break and shut the fuck up with this tiresome "scientists are know-nothing morons" nonsense.
In the philosophy of Science ALL models are "wrong" by definition, what matters is the degree of "wrongness" (or "truthiness" as it's known in the US). When we look at observations of water vapour over the past few decades they are a very good match for model outputs from 1980's models, they are a much better match for the average of ALL 1980's model outputs. Why? - because the models are just as likely to be "wrong" in either direction.
There are plenty of solid examples on google detailing phenomena that were first seen in climate models and later observed in nature, but I doubt you have heard about phenomena such as "polar amplification" or "stratospheric cooling", Why? - because google will tell you "anything you want to hear", right?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"There's no way to produce enough meat for 9 billion people."
Most of the world does not eat a lot of meat. Those that do, make up a very small population of the whole, and likely live in the US or similar.
Stop trying to sound like you are trying to feed the hungry masses of the world, when you are really targeting feeding the rich elite (relatively so in relation to 95% of that 9 billion people).
Just pick an animal who evolved in the desert. Camels would also be acceptable, but Kangaroos have other benefits such as little/no methane production, super efficient locomotion and digestive tract, and delicious. Even without global warming, these animals would be so much better in the deserts where cows are raised (Why beef in Arizona?)
"backed by millions of dollars from the federal government"
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Wouldnt it be much easier and cheaper to come up with more efficient methods of birth control for third world countries so we only have to feed 4 or 5 billion and take much less toll on the planet??!?!?!?!
Hah! I see your mythical techno salvation and raise you one Mr. Fusion.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I'll bet energy companies had wished they'd thought of that!
They have. And it's exactly because it's not bottomless that scientists fight over it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
really, 9 BILLION PEOPLE? Heck, just eating the dead would not only provide a lot of protein-rich meat but dramatically reduce the acreage wasted on gravesites!
Once we get over that taboo, it'll be easy to accept the concept of eating a few of the living as well. 5 or 6 billion people-sized dinners later and problem solved.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
This is just another conspiracy by the ailing Kitchen industry to force us to buy ovens that run hotter. :P
Move poleward. The animals are already adapted.
Corn fed beef is practically a different animal when you compare it to Grass fed beef. Grass fed beef is amazingly lean and healthy. This distinction needs to be made.
They show their CONservative bias by using the wrong term for this disaster. They are calling it what those Republicans still call it. It should be call Climate Disruption. Their kind doesn't understand science well enough to understand what is happening so their kind simply can't comprehend what is happening. It is disgusting that we all their kind to rule over us and dictate policy given that they are so stupid.
Cows have survived climate change for millions of years.
You're a stupid motherfucker for calling it "A good idea"
I call it "The Rothchild's wet dream to get even richer:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI
Human beings are stupid parrot repeaters who will still believe the lying IPCC and other totally discredited and unscientific organizations, who are owned by the above said bankers.
Passenger 1: "You're steering too far to the right -- you're going to go off the road!"
Driver: "No way. You and Passenger 2 can't agree about when the car will leave the road. So there's no problem."
Passenger 1: "But we both agree you'll go off the road if you keep going to the right!"
Driver: "Hold on, let me wade into the science here. You say the road slopes down at the edge, and Passenger 2 says it slopes up. Maybe it goes up steeply near the edge. That would slow us down. So there's no problem."
Passenger 1: "But it's just as likely to slope down! If it slopes down enough, we'll accelerate out of control. And no matter how the road slopes, you can't keep driving to the right forever. Eventually you'll leave the road."
Driver: "But I like driving this way. Besides, you guys still haven't agreed about what will happen if we leave the road. Or when that will happen."
Passenger 1: "But surely the smartest thing is just to steer back to the center rather than risk catastrophe?"
Driver: "Maybe we could build an extra section of road further off to the right. Or we could strengthen the car so it keeps running even if we leave the road. You guys should go study that and leave me alone. I like driving this way."
Passenger 1: "You're steering too far to the right -- you're going to go off the road!"
Driver: "No way. The gap between our car and the edge of the road is tiny compared to the size of the whole road. Reducing it won't have any effect."
Passenger 1: "That's irrelevant. If you cross that margin, the car will go off the road!"
Driver: "No way. You and Passenger 2 can't agree about when the car will leave the road. So there's no problem."
Passenger 1: "But we both agree you'll go off the road if you keep going to the right!"
Driver: "Hold on, let me wade into the science here. You say the road slopes down at the edge, and Passenger 2 says it slopes up. Maybe it goes up steeply near the edge. That would slow us down. So there's no problem."
Passenger 1: "But it's just as likely to slope down! If it slopes down enough, we'll accelerate out of control. And no matter how the road slopes, you can't keep driving to the right forever. Eventually you'll leave the road."
Driver: "But I like driving this way. Besides, you guys still haven't agreed about what will happen if we leave the road. Or when that will happen."
Passenger 1: "But surely the smartest thing is just to steer back to the center rather than risk catastrophe?"
Driver: "Maybe we could build an extra section of road further off to the right. Or we could strengthen the car so it keeps running even if we leave the road. You guys should go study that and leave me alone. I like driving this way."
Could you please list one or more of these end-of-the-world scares that had as much scientific consensus as climate change, but turned out to be unfounded? Environmental history has more often been a case of "don't worry about it, don't worry about it" until the resource collapsed -- DDT, Cuyuhoga River, ozone hole, atlantic cod fishing, ...
Use the Sun and one long channel of charcoal?
Interesting research indeed, but I fear the result could be patented food.
... oh, you meant for feed them for profit? Ah, then you're right. It's cheaper to throw away the food if we can't sell it for profit.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The issue isn't that the cows and chickens are having trouble coping with the climate, it's that they have trouble coping the climate in gigantic meat farms. If the industry was broken down and the animals spread out over several states, say putting a limit on the size of a meat producing facility, you would spread out the risk. Less animals in a concentrated area = less pollution and risk of disease. Take the money they're spending on genetically modifying an animal and use it to open several smaller, cleaner, productive facilities.
Gotta have some story on global warming, er cooling, er climate change, er disruption every damn day! Otherwise we won't get the same people making the same arguments, totally ignoring each other, but driving up our traffic stats.
Boring Boring Boring people. Find something new to argue about, will ya?
Murphy was an optimist
Oh that stuff that stopped 17+ years ago? Oh yea that global warming. Okay how about livestock that can survive colder temperatures? That is much more realistic given the total failure of the IPCC models based on CO2 controlling the climate.
Serious question to every one who feels that CO2 controls the climate: How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit that CO2 does not control the climate? 20 years? 30? 50? Never?
Now why do I think it will get colder? There are models that work in forecasting climate. The scientists have made predictions that have been accurate. Dr Libby from the 1970s has correctly called close to 4 decades of climate. Dr Easterbrook has correctly called it for 12+ years and Dr Abdussamatov (8 years). I hate to tell you this but they are all calling for cold of varying degrees and duration.
Both are needed to continue academics massive weight gain.
... and that's what this is about. Scare people into believing livestock cannot survive a degree or two of 'climate change' and you fuel the 'livestock is cruel' meme in the minds of the uninformed public.
Funny how domestic livestock are found in an even wider range of climates than their nearest relatives in the wild, and do better under a wider range of conditions... care to guess why? Because one of the best traits livestock can have is adaptability, so you don't lose your herd the first time you have a really harsh winter or a really hot summer. Livestock producers have selected for this since time immemorial.
And if producers are dim enough to buy into this -- if you skew herds and flocks toward varieties that are primarily heat-adapted, well, those same critters can't deal with the hard winters that are more the norm in livestock-producing areas. If everyone bought into these varieties, voila, first hard winter and you're rid of those pesky livestock producers.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?