The researcher stands to profit, because more efficient cows are worth more money to farmers.
Farmers will benefit because more efficient cows will require less feed per cow (feed constituting >80% of the input costs of animal agriculture)
Consumers will benefit because increasing efficiency means slower increases in food costs (the price of food has not kept up with inflation over the last 50-100 years largely as a result of improvements in production efficiency).
If he's breeding the cows, instead of using molecular GM techniques, then it should only cost the university's research farm the extra labor associated with data collection, which should be paid for by the research grants that the professor applies for.
If he is using molecular GM techniques then he's pissing the money away. Most consumers don't like the concept of GM food, no matter how much data there is indicating that it's no different from the Non-GM food. Your paranoia only applies if he's using molecular GM techniques and is still over blown, because he'll need to get USDA approval before allowing anyone (himself included) to taste fruit of his labors.
Molecularly identical means it's no different than what's naturally occurring pharmaceutically, but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage. This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone, that the concentrations are much higher than before.
Only in the cow, not in the resulting milk. The BST increases milk volume, thus diluting out the extra BST. The net math is 10% more milk/cow, 0% increase in BST in the milk, and less tons of feed per unit of milk volume.
'm just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.
There are 2 main types of hormones. Steroid hormones, which are derivatives of cholesterol and identical across virtually all animal species. Protein hormones, are the result of protein synthesis, and susceptible to mutation over the eons as speciation occurs, resulting in many hormones serving similar roles in different species, but being dissimilar enough as to not work in even closely related species. BST falls into the latter category.
So, good, it's not the beef hormones in McD's that's making kids mature faster and get fat, that's just the crap load of fat and calories in it.
BINGO!!
Okay, but, I'm still not convinced that's a good idea. Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they're already "in the wild"? This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat. Like, worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I've seen with my own eyes. Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves. Again, not sure why that makes it a good idea.
This is because the issue is more complicated that previously believed. The original theory behind the ban was that:
1. antibiotic use in animals promoted the distribution of resistance genes 2. These resistance genes were not wide spread previously because having these genes present in the absence of selective pressure (antibiotics) they were actually a hindrance to the bacteria [like carrying your winter jacket through the dessert, as opposed to wearing it in Alaska] 3. By removing the selective pressure (antibiotics) the bacteria without these genes would out compete those bacteria with these genes.
That was not what ended up happening. It turns out that the selective pressure did cause the genes to become more widespread within the animal population, but didn't seem to affect the rate of transmission to human colonizing bacteria. It also turns out that these genes were not the hindrance that they were expected to be and the incidence of antibiotic resistance genes with in livestock have not changed at all. The real reason that we have a lot of antibiotic resistance genes in humans is the abuse of antibiotics in humans.
Unfortunately, No one want's to hear that the scape goat you've picked out is innocent, and it's all your fault, especially if you are a politician. Consequently, you won't be seeing the ban repealed in the EU any time soon. Despite the overall tonnage of antibiotic use by EU farms is now higher than it was before the ban. They aren't feeding low doses to young pigs that appear healthy, but are instead feeding much larger doses to pigs of all ages that are obviously sick for a net gain in antibiotic use.
Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.
Livestock farms smell, Always, No matter what! The central reason being that livestock produce feces which contains incompletely digested nutrients, and urine which contains excreted compounds. You can manage the smell, mask it to varying degrees, or have so few animals that you don't notice it unless standing next to the manure pile, but there is no way to produce meat for yourself and have enough left over to sell at a profit without producing a lot of smelly manure.
Farmers farm to make money, just like everyone else. They chose the field they did because of an affinity for the animals and/or land, but if they don't turn a profit they'll be forced to sell the land and animals at a loss to someone capable of managing things more efficiently. That's why they use intensive agriculture (CAFO's). It minimizes overhead an means that they get to turn a profit more years than not (Currently most US hogs being sold by farmers to processing plants are being sold at a loss, ie it cost the farmer more to feed the pigs than they are getting for them at the plant).
The original tenants being the "Organic" movement are that "Natural is best" and "Industrial is Bad". Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. Natural is usually not best, and in many cases isn't even good.
Take chicken for example. The methionine requirement for growing broiler chickens is 0.5% from 0-3weeks of age, 0.38% from 3-6weeks of age and 0.32% from 6-8weeks of age (nutrient requirement of poultry. 9th edition pub. National Research Council, 1994), at which time the bird is usually at market weight and harvested. I use methionine as an example because the birds use a lot of it for growing feathers. It is impossible to formulate a broiler diet that is adequate in methionine that isn't wasting over half of the protein in the diet. This is because plants are poor sources of methionine (Corn =.18%). You have to add so much soybean meal to the diet that you end up with concentrations of all the other amino acids well in excess of requirement. This leads to a lot of excreted Nitrogen, which is one of the 2 main environmental pollutants in animal waste (the other being Phosphorus). The USDA-certifiable organic guidelines have an exception for the use of synthetic methionine (99.99% methionine by weight) because otherwise organic farmers would never be able to stay profitable. If you are one of those that believes these kinds of exceptions are cheating, then I can assure you that there is no such thing as "Organic" chicken in the US. I can also assure you that any attempt to produce "Organic" chicken will result in very expensive meat that has at least 2x the negative impact on the environment of "Industrial" chicken.
This is not an isolated example. Most of the changes away from "Organic" agriculture were made because they were the best practices as determined scientifically. The organic movement is about putting emotion above rigorous scientific examination of the evidence when deciding how to run a business.
Fertilizer is expensive, as is pesticide. Not using either is unacceptable because the US needs most of the corn and soy it produces every year. You could of made the (weak) argument that the US's level of production was unnecessary a decade ago, but not now that >25% of the domestic corn crop is going toward the ethanol industry. Organic farmers choose to produce grain and meat inefficiently at a time when we are trying to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil by making the whole country more efficient. These two movements have found acceptance in the minds of many of the same people despite being contradictory to the goals of each other.
I used to think that the Organic movement was a good idea. Let the farmers charge those with too much money and not enough brains more for the emotiona
Ok, most of your post is actually not far off of the mark. Cow are not carbon neutral, and the current distribution system is at least partially to blame. However I need to take a moment to beat you over the head for that last nonsensical sentence that nearly removes any value from your post.
Modern agriculture (ie Fertilisers, pesticides, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, antibiotics, posilac, et al.) is far "greener" than organic farming will ever be. I know this because I work in Agricultural research.
Modern fertilizers and pesitcides enable greater crop yeilds/acre, meaning less acres need to be planted, meaning less acres need to be driven by tractors both harvesting & planting. Organic production actually requires you pull out the tractor and appy fertilizer and pesticides more frequently (Organic doesn't say you can't, it only says you can't use specific ones becuase without both no one would be able to grow enough organic corn to feed their organic chickens) becuase it forces you to use fertilizers and pesticides that don't work as well. It also forbids the use of roundup ready crops that require a fraction of the fertilizer and pesitcide applications and can be planted without tilling the soil.
Tilling the soil is the single largest reason for nutrient leaching from soil into surface water when it rains. The tilling breaks up the soil, airing it out, and making it easier for rain to wash away important nutrients, thus requiring greater applications of fertilizers (See where I'm going with all of this?).
CAFOs enable producers to manage larger heards more efficiently, with a greater attention to detail. Some one that works with weanling pigs all day every day will have a better eye for which pigs are struggling than a farmer that only spends part of their day with the weanling pigs, and the rest of the day spread across the growers, finishers, boars, 1st and 2nd parity gilts, sows, and the farrowing house. It's akin a doctor specializing in one particular field of medicine instead of forcing them all to be General Practitioners.
Posilac (trade name for recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST) enables farmers to use less cow, and as a result less feed, to produce the same volume of milk. That kind of math shouldn't really need explanation or defending, but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac, despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk. Milk from these cows contain BST at the same concentration and cannot be differentiate from milk from cows not injected with rBST. The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.
Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical, as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development (weaning comes first to mind). They also prevent the need to use much larger doses of theraputic antibiotics, and help animals grow more efficiently as less of the energy and nutrients in animal feed go toward growing bacterial populations and more goes toward growing the host animal. None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes. My belief is that's because most people don't interact with farm animals on a regular basis, but they do go to doctors offices and hospitals where antibiotics are abused to a shameful degree (and all the bugs there can colonize humans, where many bugs that colonize pigs or chickens cannot colonize humans. The internal environment is too dissimilar.)
However, since I'm one of only a handful of people on/. with any actual education in the agricultural arena. Let the cherry picking of the topics for refutation with regurgitated FUD beign in 1... 2... 3...
Sorry, I got myself off on a tangent without even realizing it.
Your post claimed that:
People are generally ignorant, foolish, and short sighted when dealing with things outside their realm of knowledge.
which is true in a general sense, but since the people complaining are not ignorant of the realities associated with living next to a wind tower (otherwise what would they have to complain about), your post does not apply to them. Although, it may apply to those on/. who parrot them while having no first hand experience themselves.
Foolish may still apply, although I saw no evidence of this in any of the parent posts, or the article so it seems to be stating facts that are not in evidence.
Short sighted most likely doesn't apply because as I stated before, those doing the complaining live next to the towers and are to a certain extent, warning the rest of us to the long term fall out of installing a wind farm next door. Dismissing the concerns of those in the know and putting wind farms everywhere without trying to address the warnings raised by those complaining on the other hand smacks of doing something for the sake of looking busy which is often foolish and always shortsighted.
So I guess the point I was trying to make (in a long winded sort of way) is that warning others as to some of the potential pitfalls of ubiquitous wind farms does not make someone ignorant, foolish or short sighted. On the other hand, disregarding those warnings simply because you don't think it'll ever affect you directly is at least one if not all three
I'm not forgetting it, but the summary claims that most of the methane comes from burps, not the slurry ponds. Even including the pond, I still can't believe that the methane from the worlds cattle out weighs all the methane from other sources such as human industrial activities, other animal production facilities (swine & poultry), or just the gas coming from human farts/burps (who burp and fart an awful lot and have the cows outnumbered by a fair margin).
I've not been paying much attention to milk prices recently. Left the dairy industry ~7 years ago for the swine and poultry sector. Are we gearing up for more small farm losses and consolidations?
You are incredibly paranoid. At least you are aware of the possiblity, so please take this in the positive and friendly way it is intended. Take off the tinfoil hat and just breathe.
Long before the green brigade hit the scene nutritionists and producers have been trying to increase the efficiency of feed utilization (Less Methane produced means more VFA's produced, and VFA's are the main energy unit in cattle). This has been managed by modifying which ingredients are included (some promote methane producing bacteria more than others), feeding bacteria (to out compete the methane producing bacteria), and feeding various antimicrobials (to kill the methane producing bacteria). None of this requires doing anthing that will endanger the environment, it's just finding the optimal conditions for efficient feed utilization.
Now, I never read the article, so I have no idea if they are planning on using GM cows, or simply finding out which cows are the most efficent utilizers of their food, and then breeding them to each other. But based on my understanding of animal genetics and breeding, the latter is far easier than creating a GM cow that no one will want to eat.
No cattle spend the majority of their day inside unless it's winter and even then they prefer it colder than we do (much lower thermal neutral zone). They may be under a roof most of the day, but there are usually at least 3 open walls and a large opening running the length of the barn so that the warm stale air isn't trapped. Swine and poultry are routinely housed indoors, but not cattle. Dairy or otherwise.
Cows are responsible for almost 75% of total methane emissions, mostly coming from burps.
Citation needed.
I find that number very hard to believe. I've worked with a lot of livestock, and don't doubt that a lot of methane is coming from cattle, but I can't believe that they make up such a large percentage of global methane production. Maybe I could believe 75% of methane produced by agriculture, but I would expect agriculture to not contribute more than say 25% tops. Or alternatively, that methane is 75% of the greenhouse gasses emitted by cattle.
Your argument will seem like a slap in the face if you are a member of the "relatively insignificant number of people" being trampled on by the majority. You can install windmills while making concessions to those that have to live near them. Space the machines out more, use quieter motors, plant tall bushes around the perimeter of the wind farm to deflect the sound. There is no need to treat those who'll be living near the windmills like dirt just because you won't be one of them. That is all most of the people complaining about them want. Some sort of effort to keep the inconvenience to a minimum.
[Sarcasm]An alternative method to decrease the dependence on fossil fuels would be to keep the same number of windmills that we have now, but kill anyone that doesn't live close enough for them to be practical. It's an obviously excessive tactic, but would "Save the World" as you profess to desire. What does it matter if you'll be one of those killed. It'll be for the "Greater Good" of all humanity to come (Far out numbering those currently living) if those who don't live next to windmills are euthanized now to prevent them from wasting power, water, and other resources.[/sarcasm]
I realize that my example is inflammatory and obviously flawed, but it illustrates my point about how important it is to avoid trampling over the rights and desires of a "relatively insignificant number of people", because you may someday find yourself in that number. IIRC, not stopping the Nazi invasion of Poland was justified because it was in the Greater Good to avoid escalating the conflict to include other countries, and the Pols were considered expendable on the international stage by those countries not currently in Germany's cross-hairs.
(I know, I know, how lame to pull a Nazi reference. However, I'm not comparing anyone to the Nazi's, but to those that espoused appeasement of them to avoid war, which was a widely accepted "best policy" at the time.)
Your kind of "All or Nothing" argument seems to remind me of a fairly reviled past presidents infamous "Your either with us, or you're against us" mentality. Just because You haven't had to deal with the noise or bird death or other wind turbine related issue, does not make it a non-issue. It may very well be short sighted, but it would be better to find a way to have the towers and address the issues of those who'll be forced to live next door, than to simply dismiss the complainers as being troglodytes and beneath notice.
You can and in fact MUST try to do both. Otherwise those who have to deal with the negative aspects of a new and local wind farm will feel disenfranchised and start supporting the "Global Warming is a Myth" camp. I know just how "ignorant, foolish, and short sighted" people can be. I work in agriculture and pull my hair out with frustration when someone talks about how we need to go green and in the same conversation rave about organic food production (which is about as un-"green" as you can get). However, my industry has made the huge mistake of simply dismissing those in the Organic or Animal Rights (not to be confused with the Animal Welfare with whom we work closely) movements to our own peril.
You want to change the world? You want to save us from our dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels? Well you're going to have to deal with the "ignorant, foolish, and short sighted" masses with out getting insulting, condescending, or dismissive. Otherwise you'll make things much harder for yourself, if you ever succeed at all.
IIRC from the 6 month write up, he splurged and got the pricier (i.e. longer lasting) panels because he was getting either a grant or tax break from California for putting the panels in.
IIRC from the 6 month update, he has a small army of PC's turned servers running in his basement at all times. That'll increase the need for air conditioning, as well as the large amount of power they draw all day long. He does have unusually high energy bills, but I'm sure they aren't unreasonable for some/. members with similarly aggressive power requirements.
That is most likely the primary reason, but it seems as though it is the last one people think of. Their first guess is that McD's, Wendy's, KFC et al. adulterate their meat, which is nonsense.
The USDA has tiers for meat quality in every sector, based on marbling, thickness, color, texture, water holding capacity, etc. Obviously there is going to be meat of different quality, with the higher quality cuts costing more. Fast food is exactly that, Fast. They are also fairly inexpensive, which cannot be pulled off if you are using top dollar cuts.
You my dear friend are completely full of shit. I work in the Ag sector (as if you couldn't tell by how much this apparently matters to me). You cannot adulterate meat. You can't, it's illegal, and you'll spend a lot of time in jail for it. It's a public health issue.
Feel free to be as skeptical as you want, but you are wrong. Look up the USDA some time and take a gander at the regulations they have in place for determining which food is acceptable for human consumption. Then come back and try to defend your argument. It cannot be done.
Slashdotters like to think of themselves as being too jaded to live, but you all know about as much about agriculture and the US food chain as my grandmother knows about the Linux Kernel.
The major problem with wind and sun, appart from efficiency, is one of storage. Biomass and super old biomass (I like that name) are both fairly easy to store. They don't release their energy until you take action. Electricity generated by wind and solar can be stored, but we lack the technology and infrastructure to store it long term. Even if this article is accurate, and achieveable. We still need to find a way to store all of that electricity to deal with lulls and peaks in demand.
I'd assume that those complaining about the noise live near the towers, thus making it well within their relm of knowledge. As a result I'm having a hard time seeing how your post is relevant.
(I do agree that people are as you say, I just don't see how that's relevant in this case.)
First off, whining about someone getting an undeserved "insightful" or "informative" or even "troll" is a long glorious tradition here on slashdot.
Secondly, I'm just totally confused as to how spreading FUD is insightful. I could understand a "Funny" tag if the tone of the posts were supposed to be sarcastic, but they aren't. Insightful is supposed to be reserved for posts that actually elevate the discussion, not repeat nonsensical FUD. That's what "Troll" is supposed to be reserved for.
It's still not insightful. "Fried Chicken" is fried Chicken.
The point that both are playing off of is still wrong. There is no WOOOSH if I'm pointing out that the central point of a post is based on inaccurate FUD, unless the original post was playing off of the general acceptance that the FUD in question is wrong. That is not the impression I got from either post, or from your explanation.
Many people (the GPPP and yourself included) appear to believe that it is legal and/or common for fast food chains to adulterate the food they sell to somehow make it completely other than what it is presented as being. Since it is neither legal or common, yet the belief persists, I see no WOOOSH moment when I point that out.
The ground beef at McD's, the chicken wings at KFC, etc, are all exactly what they claim to be, otherwise they'd have been shut down by the government a while ago. The FUD in question is spread by vegetarian activist groups (HSUS, PETA, ALF, ELF, etc.) that have no moral qualms with lying in order to achieve their political agenda, which is vegetarianism for all with no exceptions. Compared to politically motivated groups that lie when it suits them, I'd trust McD's and KFC any day of the week because the companies are at least accountable to consumers. the activist groups have no such check on their behavior.
KFC sells cooked Chicken, just like McDonalds sells cooked beef.
If those moding the parent insightful are basing it on the rumor that supposedly KFC changed its name because they used GM chicken, that's just horseshit and you are fucking morons for believing it.
As a member of the agriculture community I can assure you that KFC changed its name exclusively for marketing reasons. They buy their chickens from the same farms that your local supermarket does. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp
You can call me a liar all you want, but the battery I got from a third party vendor gave me 2x the time I got with the factory battery when it was brand new. The total amount of power stored was quite a bit higher than the original battery (71w vs. 55.2w), and it claimed to have some chip that regulated power output more intelligently, so that it wasn't wasting power.
It is definitely possible that I got a lower quality battery to start with, thus skewing my comparisons in favor of the replacement battery. It also wasn't over the last 4 years (although it was over a 4 year period). The PowerBook was a graduation present for myself purchased over the summer of 2002, but was overstock from a recently discontinued model IIRC (Buddy of mine worked at an Apple store and bought it for me through the corporate discount system). The NewerTech 71W batter was purchased in late 2005 or early 2006, because I replaced the PowerBook with a 1st gen Macbook Pro in August 2006 and wouldn't have bothered to spend anymore money on a laptop that I wasn't using anymore.
Exactly! I bought a new battery for my old powerbook about 4 years after I got it and the replacement batter had so much more juice that I actually got 2x the battery life out of it that the original battery gave me (when brand new).
The problem isn't that batteries aren't improving, but that battery improvements aren't keeping pace with hardware requirements. The recent shift toward performance/watt and Apple's larger, but not exteranlly accessable battery seem to be aimed at addressing this imbalance.
IIRC, OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, but convicted in the civil case. The reason being that the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than criminal ones. Although, I do believe that you are right. Civil cases invariably wait for the outcome of criminal prosecution before proceeding.
in reality, the only rights you have are the ones that either you can defend yourself or the government promises to defend for you.
I think you're only half right. You have the natural right to do ANYTHING. However, you can only exercise those rights to the extent that you can defend yourself or the government you've aligned yourself with promises to defend for you. That's the reason governments exist. Those that couldn't defend enough of their rights pooled their resources, gave up some of their rights to governmental control, in order to get the larger pool of rights enforced more consistently.
I don't believe that it is any different with a totalitarian regime. They've given up a larger proportion of their natural rights, but fundamental rules still apply. If they feel that the government is not adequately holding up its end of the bargain, then the people can try and take those rights back and revoke the mandate of the government to rule.
And the rulers don't have to be selected by the people of that country. If a stronger country invades a weaker country, the rights of the conquered people are determined by the outside force that invaded them.
Only so long as the conquered eventually stop fighting. That's part of the problem the US is having in Iraq. We won the formal war, but the insurrection continues because they are unwilling to admit defeat. As long as a large portion of the population in Iraq does not support the government, then it will have no mandate and will face violent opposition at every turn. There is a large contingent of the Iraqi population that have refused to grant the Iraqi government the right to rule.
In Iran, there appears to be those that are revoking the governments right to rule, and its authority to regulate speach
Slashdot Mirror
The researcher stands to profit, because more efficient cows are worth more money to farmers.
Farmers will benefit because more efficient cows will require less feed per cow (feed constituting >80% of the input costs of animal agriculture)
Consumers will benefit because increasing efficiency means slower increases in food costs (the price of food has not kept up with inflation over the last 50-100 years largely as a result of improvements in production efficiency).
If he's breeding the cows, instead of using molecular GM techniques, then it should only cost the university's research farm the extra labor associated with data collection, which should be paid for by the research grants that the professor applies for.
If he is using molecular GM techniques then he's pissing the money away. Most consumers don't like the concept of GM food, no matter how much data there is indicating that it's no different from the Non-GM food. Your paranoia only applies if he's using molecular GM techniques and is still over blown, because he'll need to get USDA approval before allowing anyone (himself included) to taste fruit of his labors.
Molecularly identical means it's no different than what's naturally occurring pharmaceutically, but the effect of pharmaceuticals change with dosage. This is what is alarming to me about bovine growth hormone, that the concentrations are much higher than before.
Only in the cow, not in the resulting milk. The BST increases milk volume, thus diluting out the extra BST. The net math is 10% more milk/cow, 0% increase in BST in the milk, and less tons of feed per unit of milk volume.
'm just cautious around hormones, since my father worked with pharmaceutical hormones a lot, and I learned they can be fairly "general" even when using another species' hormones, but it's ultimately all about the chemistry that I don't know and might mean nothing happens.
There are 2 main types of hormones. Steroid hormones, which are derivatives of cholesterol and identical across virtually all animal species. Protein hormones, are the result of protein synthesis, and susceptible to mutation over the eons as speciation occurs, resulting in many hormones serving similar roles in different species, but being dissimilar enough as to not work in even closely related species. BST falls into the latter category.
So, good, it's not the beef hormones in McD's that's making kids mature faster and get fat, that's just the crap load of fat and calories in it.
BINGO!!
Okay, but, I'm still not convinced that's a good idea. Why would not using antibiotics reduce the number of resistant strains once they're already "in the wild"? This behavior sounds like giving every kid Amoxacilin because they just turned 9 and kids that age might have strep throat. Like, worse than the shameful abuses in hospitals that I've seen with my own eyes. Sure most of the bugs only affect the animals themselves. Again, not sure why that makes it a good idea.
This is because the issue is more complicated that previously believed. The original theory behind the ban was that:
1. antibiotic use in animals promoted the distribution of resistance genes
2. These resistance genes were not wide spread previously because having these genes present in the absence of selective pressure (antibiotics) they were actually a hindrance to the bacteria [like carrying your winter jacket through the dessert, as opposed to wearing it in Alaska]
3. By removing the selective pressure (antibiotics) the bacteria without these genes would out compete those bacteria with these genes.
That was not what ended up happening. It turns out that the selective pressure did cause the genes to become more widespread within the animal population, but didn't seem to affect the rate of transmission to human colonizing bacteria. It also turns out that these genes were not the hindrance that they were expected to be and the incidence of antibiotic resistance genes with in livestock have not changed at all. The real reason that we have a lot of antibiotic resistance genes in humans is the abuse of antibiotics in humans.
Unfortunately, No one want's to hear that the scape goat you've picked out is innocent, and it's all your fault, especially if you are a politician. Consequently, you won't be seeing the ban repealed in the EU any time soon. Despite the overall tonnage of antibiotic use by EU farms is now higher than it was before the ban. They aren't feeding low doses to young pigs that appear healthy, but are instead feeding much larger doses to pigs of all ages that are obviously sick for a net gain in antibiotic use.
Basically, if your farm smells or if all your plants or animals are getting or are on the brink of getting sick, you're doing something wrong.
Livestock farms smell, Always, No matter what! The central reason being that livestock produce feces which contains incompletely digested nutrients, and urine which contains excreted compounds. You can manage the smell, mask it to varying degrees, or have so few animals that you don't notice it unless standing next to the manure pile, but there is no way to produce meat for yourself and have enough left over to sell at a profit without producing a lot of smelly manure.
.18%). You have to add so much soybean meal to the diet that you end up with concentrations of all the other amino acids well in excess of requirement. This leads to a lot of excreted Nitrogen, which is one of the 2 main environmental pollutants in animal waste (the other being Phosphorus). The USDA-certifiable organic guidelines have an exception for the use of synthetic methionine (99.99% methionine by weight) because otherwise organic farmers would never be able to stay profitable. If you are one of those that believes these kinds of exceptions are cheating, then I can assure you that there is no such thing as "Organic" chicken in the US. I can also assure you that any attempt to produce "Organic" chicken will result in very expensive meat that has at least 2x the negative impact on the environment of "Industrial" chicken.
Farmers farm to make money, just like everyone else. They chose the field they did because of an affinity for the animals and/or land, but if they don't turn a profit they'll be forced to sell the land and animals at a loss to someone capable of managing things more efficiently. That's why they use intensive agriculture (CAFO's). It minimizes overhead an means that they get to turn a profit more years than not (Currently most US hogs being sold by farmers to processing plants are being sold at a loss, ie it cost the farmer more to feed the pigs than they are getting for them at the plant).
The original tenants being the "Organic" movement are that "Natural is best" and "Industrial is Bad". Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. Natural is usually not best, and in many cases isn't even good.
Take chicken for example. The methionine requirement for growing broiler chickens is 0.5% from 0-3weeks of age, 0.38% from 3-6weeks of age and 0.32% from 6-8weeks of age (nutrient requirement of poultry. 9th edition pub. National Research Council, 1994), at which time the bird is usually at market weight and harvested. I use methionine as an example because the birds use a lot of it for growing feathers. It is impossible to formulate a broiler diet that is adequate in methionine that isn't wasting over half of the protein in the diet. This is because plants are poor sources of methionine (Corn =
This is not an isolated example. Most of the changes away from "Organic" agriculture were made because they were the best practices as determined scientifically. The organic movement is about putting emotion above rigorous scientific examination of the evidence when deciding how to run a business.
Fertilizer is expensive, as is pesticide. Not using either is unacceptable because the US needs most of the corn and soy it produces every year. You could of made the (weak) argument that the US's level of production was unnecessary a decade ago, but not now that >25% of the domestic corn crop is going toward the ethanol industry. Organic farmers choose to produce grain and meat inefficiently at a time when we are trying to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil by making the whole country more efficient. These two movements have found acceptance in the minds of many of the same people despite being contradictory to the goals of each other.
I used to think that the Organic movement was a good idea. Let the farmers charge those with too much money and not enough brains more for the emotiona
Ok, most of your post is actually not far off of the mark. Cow are not carbon neutral, and the current distribution system is at least partially to blame. However I need to take a moment to beat you over the head for that last nonsensical sentence that nearly removes any value from your post.
/. with any actual education in the agricultural arena. Let the cherry picking of the topics for refutation with regurgitated FUD beign in 1... 2... 3...
Modern agriculture (ie Fertilisers, pesticides, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, antibiotics, posilac, et al.) is far "greener" than organic farming will ever be. I know this because I work in Agricultural research.
Modern fertilizers and pesitcides enable greater crop yeilds/acre, meaning less acres need to be planted, meaning less acres need to be driven by tractors both harvesting & planting. Organic production actually requires you pull out the tractor and appy fertilizer and pesticides more frequently (Organic doesn't say you can't, it only says you can't use specific ones becuase without both no one would be able to grow enough organic corn to feed their organic chickens) becuase it forces you to use fertilizers and pesticides that don't work as well. It also forbids the use of roundup ready crops that require a fraction of the fertilizer and pesitcide applications and can be planted without tilling the soil.
Tilling the soil is the single largest reason for nutrient leaching from soil into surface water when it rains. The tilling breaks up the soil, airing it out, and making it easier for rain to wash away important nutrients, thus requiring greater applications of fertilizers (See where I'm going with all of this?).
CAFOs enable producers to manage larger heards more efficiently, with a greater attention to detail. Some one that works with weanling pigs all day every day will have a better eye for which pigs are struggling than a farmer that only spends part of their day with the weanling pigs, and the rest of the day spread across the growers, finishers, boars, 1st and 2nd parity gilts, sows, and the farrowing house. It's akin a doctor specializing in one particular field of medicine instead of forcing them all to be General Practitioners.
Posilac (trade name for recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST) enables farmers to use less cow, and as a result less feed, to produce the same volume of milk. That kind of math shouldn't really need explanation or defending, but the organic movement forbids the use of posilac, despite it being molecularly identical to the naturally occuring bovine somatotropin normally found in milk. Milk from these cows contain BST at the same concentration and cannot be differentiate from milk from cows not injected with rBST. The fact that tests have been done where rBST and purified 'normal' BST have been injected into human tissue and proved to be too dissimilar to interact with the receptors for human sotmatotropin seems not to faze anyone for some reason.
Sub-theraputic use of antibiotics both prevents clinical, as well as sub-clinical infections and is primarily used in animals predisposed to infections due to stage of development (weaning comes first to mind). They also prevent the need to use much larger doses of theraputic antibiotics, and help animals grow more efficiently as less of the energy and nutrients in animal feed go toward growing bacterial populations and more goes toward growing the host animal. None of the data coming out of the EU in the wake of their complete ban of sub-theraputic antibiotics has shown any reduction in the prevalence or distribution of antibiotic resistance genes. My belief is that's because most people don't interact with farm animals on a regular basis, but they do go to doctors offices and hospitals where antibiotics are abused to a shameful degree (and all the bugs there can colonize humans, where many bugs that colonize pigs or chickens cannot colonize humans. The internal environment is too dissimilar.)
However, since I'm one of only a handful of people on
Please let my pessimism be wrong for once.
Your post claimed that:
People are generally ignorant, foolish, and short sighted when dealing with things outside their realm of knowledge.
which is true in a general sense, but since the people complaining are not ignorant of the realities associated with living next to a wind tower (otherwise what would they have to complain about), your post does not apply to them. Although, it may apply to those on /. who parrot them while having no first hand experience themselves.
Foolish may still apply, although I saw no evidence of this in any of the parent posts, or the article so it seems to be stating facts that are not in evidence.
Short sighted most likely doesn't apply because as I stated before, those doing the complaining live next to the towers and are to a certain extent, warning the rest of us to the long term fall out of installing a wind farm next door. Dismissing the concerns of those in the know and putting wind farms everywhere without trying to address the warnings raised by those complaining on the other hand smacks of doing something for the sake of looking busy which is often foolish and always shortsighted.
So I guess the point I was trying to make (in a long winded sort of way) is that warning others as to some of the potential pitfalls of ubiquitous wind farms does not make someone ignorant, foolish or short sighted. On the other hand, disregarding those warnings simply because you don't think it'll ever affect you directly is at least one if not all three
I'm not forgetting it, but the summary claims that most of the methane comes from burps, not the slurry ponds. Even including the pond, I still can't believe that the methane from the worlds cattle out weighs all the methane from other sources such as human industrial activities, other animal production facilities (swine & poultry), or just the gas coming from human farts/burps (who burp and fart an awful lot and have the cows outnumbered by a fair margin).
I've not been paying much attention to milk prices recently. Left the dairy industry ~7 years ago for the swine and poultry sector. Are we gearing up for more small farm losses and consolidations?
You are incredibly paranoid. At least you are aware of the possiblity, so please take this in the positive and friendly way it is intended. Take off the tinfoil hat and just breathe.
Long before the green brigade hit the scene nutritionists and producers have been trying to increase the efficiency of feed utilization (Less Methane produced means more VFA's produced, and VFA's are the main energy unit in cattle). This has been managed by modifying which ingredients are included (some promote methane producing bacteria more than others), feeding bacteria (to out compete the methane producing bacteria), and feeding various antimicrobials (to kill the methane producing bacteria). None of this requires doing anthing that will endanger the environment, it's just finding the optimal conditions for efficient feed utilization.
Now, I never read the article, so I have no idea if they are planning on using GM cows, or simply finding out which cows are the most efficent utilizers of their food, and then breeding them to each other. But based on my understanding of animal genetics and breeding, the latter is far easier than creating a GM cow that no one will want to eat.
No cattle spend the majority of their day inside unless it's winter and even then they prefer it colder than we do (much lower thermal neutral zone). They may be under a roof most of the day, but there are usually at least 3 open walls and a large opening running the length of the barn so that the warm stale air isn't trapped. Swine and poultry are routinely housed indoors, but not cattle. Dairy or otherwise.
Cows are responsible for almost 75% of total methane emissions, mostly coming from burps.
Citation needed.
I find that number very hard to believe. I've worked with a lot of livestock, and don't doubt that a lot of methane is coming from cattle, but I can't believe that they make up such a large percentage of global methane production. Maybe I could believe 75% of methane produced by agriculture, but I would expect agriculture to not contribute more than say 25% tops. Or alternatively, that methane is 75% of the greenhouse gasses emitted by cattle.
Your argument will seem like a slap in the face if you are a member of the "relatively insignificant number of people" being trampled on by the majority. You can install windmills while making concessions to those that have to live near them. Space the machines out more, use quieter motors, plant tall bushes around the perimeter of the wind farm to deflect the sound. There is no need to treat those who'll be living near the windmills like dirt just because you won't be one of them. That is all most of the people complaining about them want. Some sort of effort to keep the inconvenience to a minimum.
[Sarcasm]An alternative method to decrease the dependence on fossil fuels would be to keep the same number of windmills that we have now, but kill anyone that doesn't live close enough for them to be practical. It's an obviously excessive tactic, but would "Save the World" as you profess to desire. What does it matter if you'll be one of those killed. It'll be for the "Greater Good" of all humanity to come (Far out numbering those currently living) if those who don't live next to windmills are euthanized now to prevent them from wasting power, water, and other resources.[/sarcasm]
I realize that my example is inflammatory and obviously flawed, but it illustrates my point about how important it is to avoid trampling over the rights and desires of a "relatively insignificant number of people", because you may someday find yourself in that number. IIRC, not stopping the Nazi invasion of Poland was justified because it was in the Greater Good to avoid escalating the conflict to include other countries, and the Pols were considered expendable on the international stage by those countries not currently in Germany's cross-hairs.
(I know, I know, how lame to pull a Nazi reference. However, I'm not comparing anyone to the Nazi's, but to those that espoused appeasement of them to avoid war, which was a widely accepted "best policy" at the time.)
Your kind of "All or Nothing" argument seems to remind me of a fairly reviled past presidents infamous "Your either with us, or you're against us" mentality. Just because You haven't had to deal with the noise or bird death or other wind turbine related issue, does not make it a non-issue. It may very well be short sighted, but it would be better to find a way to have the towers and address the issues of those who'll be forced to live next door, than to simply dismiss the complainers as being troglodytes and beneath notice.
You can and in fact MUST try to do both. Otherwise those who have to deal with the negative aspects of a new and local wind farm will feel disenfranchised and start supporting the "Global Warming is a Myth" camp. I know just how "ignorant, foolish, and short sighted" people can be. I work in agriculture and pull my hair out with frustration when someone talks about how we need to go green and in the same conversation rave about organic food production (which is about as un-"green" as you can get). However, my industry has made the huge mistake of simply dismissing those in the Organic or Animal Rights (not to be confused with the Animal Welfare with whom we work closely) movements to our own peril.
You want to change the world? You want to save us from our dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels? Well you're going to have to deal with the "ignorant, foolish, and short sighted" masses with out getting insulting, condescending, or dismissive. Otherwise you'll make things much harder for yourself, if you ever succeed at all.
IIRC from the 6 month write up, he splurged and got the pricier (i.e. longer lasting) panels because he was getting either a grant or tax break from California for putting the panels in.
IIRC from the 6 month update, he has a small army of PC's turned servers running in his basement at all times. That'll increase the need for air conditioning, as well as the large amount of power they draw all day long. He does have unusually high energy bills, but I'm sure they aren't unreasonable for some /. members with similarly aggressive power requirements.
Maybe it's freshness.
That is most likely the primary reason, but it seems as though it is the last one people think of. Their first guess is that McD's, Wendy's, KFC et al. adulterate their meat, which is nonsense.
The USDA has tiers for meat quality in every sector, based on marbling, thickness, color, texture, water holding capacity, etc. Obviously there is going to be meat of different quality, with the higher quality cuts costing more. Fast food is exactly that, Fast. They are also fairly inexpensive, which cannot be pulled off if you are using top dollar cuts.
You my dear friend are completely full of shit. I work in the Ag sector (as if you couldn't tell by how much this apparently matters to me). You cannot adulterate meat. You can't, it's illegal, and you'll spend a lot of time in jail for it. It's a public health issue.
Feel free to be as skeptical as you want, but you are wrong. Look up the USDA some time and take a gander at the regulations they have in place for determining which food is acceptable for human consumption. Then come back and try to defend your argument. It cannot be done.
Slashdotters like to think of themselves as being too jaded to live, but you all know about as much about agriculture and the US food chain as my grandmother knows about the Linux Kernel.
The major problem with wind and sun, appart from efficiency, is one of storage. Biomass and super old biomass (I like that name) are both fairly easy to store. They don't release their energy until you take action. Electricity generated by wind and solar can be stored, but we lack the technology and infrastructure to store it long term. Even if this article is accurate, and achieveable. We still need to find a way to store all of that electricity to deal with lulls and peaks in demand.
I'd assume that those complaining about the noise live near the towers, thus making it well within their relm of knowledge. As a result I'm having a hard time seeing how your post is relevant.
(I do agree that people are as you say, I just don't see how that's relevant in this case.)
First off, whining about someone getting an undeserved "insightful" or "informative" or even "troll" is a long glorious tradition here on slashdot.
Secondly, I'm just totally confused as to how spreading FUD is insightful. I could understand a "Funny" tag if the tone of the posts were supposed to be sarcastic, but they aren't. Insightful is supposed to be reserved for posts that actually elevate the discussion, not repeat nonsensical FUD. That's what "Troll" is supposed to be reserved for.
It's still not insightful. "Fried Chicken" is fried Chicken.
The point that both are playing off of is still wrong. There is no WOOOSH if I'm pointing out that the central point of a post is based on inaccurate FUD, unless the original post was playing off of the general acceptance that the FUD in question is wrong. That is not the impression I got from either post, or from your explanation.
Many people (the GPPP and yourself included) appear to believe that it is legal and/or common for fast food chains to adulterate the food they sell to somehow make it completely other than what it is presented as being. Since it is neither legal or common, yet the belief persists, I see no WOOOSH moment when I point that out.
The ground beef at McD's, the chicken wings at KFC, etc, are all exactly what they claim to be, otherwise they'd have been shut down by the government a while ago. The FUD in question is spread by vegetarian activist groups (HSUS, PETA, ALF, ELF, etc.) that have no moral qualms with lying in order to achieve their political agenda, which is vegetarianism for all with no exceptions. Compared to politically motivated groups that lie when it suits them, I'd trust McD's and KFC any day of the week because the companies are at least accountable to consumers. the activist groups have no such check on their behavior.
How the Fuck is this Insightful?
KFC sells cooked Chicken, just like McDonalds sells cooked beef.
If those moding the parent insightful are basing it on the rumor that supposedly KFC changed its name because they used GM chicken, that's just horseshit and you are fucking morons for believing it.
As a member of the agriculture community I can assure you that KFC changed its name exclusively for marketing reasons. They buy their chickens from the same farms that your local supermarket does. http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp
You can call me a liar all you want, but the battery I got from a third party vendor gave me 2x the time I got with the factory battery when it was brand new. The total amount of power stored was quite a bit higher than the original battery (71w vs. 55.2w), and it claimed to have some chip that regulated power output more intelligently, so that it wasn't wasting power.
It is definitely possible that I got a lower quality battery to start with, thus skewing my comparisons in favor of the replacement battery. It also wasn't over the last 4 years (although it was over a 4 year period). The PowerBook was a graduation present for myself purchased over the summer of 2002, but was overstock from a recently discontinued model IIRC (Buddy of mine worked at an Apple store and bought it for me through the corporate discount system). The NewerTech 71W batter was purchased in late 2005 or early 2006, because I replaced the PowerBook with a 1st gen Macbook Pro in August 2006 and wouldn't have bothered to spend anymore money on a laptop that I wasn't using anymore.
Exactly! I bought a new battery for my old powerbook about 4 years after I got it and the replacement batter had so much more juice that I actually got 2x the battery life out of it that the original battery gave me (when brand new).
The problem isn't that batteries aren't improving, but that battery improvements aren't keeping pace with hardware requirements. The recent shift toward performance/watt and Apple's larger, but not exteranlly accessable battery seem to be aimed at addressing this imbalance.
IIRC, OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case, but convicted in the civil case. The reason being that the burden of proof is much lower in civil cases than criminal ones. Although, I do believe that you are right. Civil cases invariably wait for the outcome of criminal prosecution before proceeding.
in reality, the only rights you have are the ones that either you can defend yourself or the government promises to defend for you.
I think you're only half right. You have the natural right to do ANYTHING. However, you can only exercise those rights to the extent that you can defend yourself or the government you've aligned yourself with promises to defend for you. That's the reason governments exist. Those that couldn't defend enough of their rights pooled their resources, gave up some of their rights to governmental control, in order to get the larger pool of rights enforced more consistently.
I don't believe that it is any different with a totalitarian regime. They've given up a larger proportion of their natural rights, but fundamental rules still apply. If they feel that the government is not adequately holding up its end of the bargain, then the people can try and take those rights back and revoke the mandate of the government to rule.
And the rulers don't have to be selected by the people of that country. If a stronger country invades a weaker country, the rights of the conquered people are determined by the outside force that invaded them.
Only so long as the conquered eventually stop fighting. That's part of the problem the US is having in Iraq. We won the formal war, but the insurrection continues because they are unwilling to admit defeat. As long as a large portion of the population in Iraq does not support the government, then it will have no mandate and will face violent opposition at every turn. There is a large contingent of the Iraqi population that have refused to grant the Iraqi government the right to rule.
In Iran, there appears to be those that are revoking the governments right to rule, and its authority to regulate speach