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.""
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
Fair enough: One vote for a police state. We will all be better off without red meat. Farmers should never be allowed to respond to market conditions. What could go wrong? It's not like anything similar has been tried previously.
Read some history. Too much government power is very bad.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
"Red meat offers very little and is harmful to the human body in many ways.".
Yes the harm it does to Olympic athletes and cyclists is a warning for everybody. Nobody needs iron, zinc and those fat-soluble vitamins from meat if Walgreens has them in little bottles.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
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.)
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
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.
Slate recently had a decent article examining all of the impacts of a world that's entirely vegetarian. Interesting stuff.
(My family is vegetarian, even my kids. People stopped asking "where do you get your protein?" when they see my kids, who each were tallest in grade school. My youngest daughter was 5'6" at age 10.)
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.
I also hate to be the one to point this out, but given a free choice much (not all) of the world population starts consuming meat once given the economic means to do so.
In a world that seems to be lurching towards greater individual autonomy and personal choice, your solution does not strike me as likely to get off the ground. At the end, you'll either have to adopt more and more coercive action to meet your goal or accept that there are billions of independent agents with different preferences.