Less and Better Meat is Key for a Healthier Planet

/by

Published: October 2017

Is grass-fed beef good or bad for the climate? That’s the question examined in a major report released this week by the University of Oxford’s Food Climate Research Network (FCRN). While “Grazed and Confused” intended to reduce confusion about the climate merits of pasture-based meat, the report’s narrow focus on the net climate impacts of grass-fed meat has instead muddied the waters.

That’s because one of the report’s main conclusions—”Eating less meat, of all types, is critical for fighting climate change”—fails to account for the many environmental, animal welfare, and health benefits of well-managed, pasture-raised animals. The report’s message also undercuts the urgent need to expand support for pasture-based and mixed crop-livestock systems as vital alternatives to the industrial meat industry’s inhumane and environmentally destructive practices, including reliance on toxic, chemical-intensive GMO monocultures for feed.

The authors base their conclusion on their finding that the carbon sequestration gains of even well-managed grazing systems are eclipsed by these farms’ methane and nitrous oxide emissions. We agree that reducing meat consumption is key to combating climate change. But does that mean we should focus on eating less grass-fed meat or reducing investment and support for farmers that adopt these kinds of production systems?

No. Since more than 95 percent of the beef consumed in the United States comes from animals raised on polluting, inhumane factory farms, we should focus first on slashing consumption—and subsidies for the production of industrial animal products. We also need to significantly increase consumption of and investment in plant-based protein foods. Research shows the world cannot meet greenhouse gas reduction targets without drastically cutting emissions from our meat and dairy-intensive diets. And most of that reduction must come from the global West and North—especially in the U.S., where we eat more meat per person than any other major country in the world.

Grass-fed benefits go beyond climate

Grass-fed beef is not a silver bullet for climate-conscious carnivores. But for those who do eat meat, eating smaller portions of meat that is produced by well-managed, certified grass-fed, and organic farms has other benefits for the well-being of animals, pollinators, public health, biodiversity, our soils, air, and water.

KEEP READING ON FOOD TANK

Monsanto in Trouble

/by

Author: Karin Heinze | Published: October 24, 2017

Over 1.3 million EU citizens say: ban glyphosate 

The US seed-& pesticide corporation Monsanto is in trouble. There are many reasons. Among others, the authorization of Monsanto’s flagship the weedkiller Roundup and its ingredient glyphosate is expiring in the EU by the end of this year. Plus more and more weeds are resistant to the pesticide. Monsanto’s ‘solution’ to this problem, another very toxic herbicide called Dicamba, turns out to be a complete failure. The Monsanto Tribunal last fall in The Hague and court cases have been exposing the way Monsanto works. The legal opinion of the Monsanto Tribunal has been spread to all corners of the world by social and official media, inspiring victims of pesticide use and more consumers to show the true cost of Monsanto’s business.

What happened after the Tribunal throughout 2017? Glyphosate, active ingredient of Roundup, has created a huge discussion. Over 1.3 million EU citizens have signed an official request to ban glyphosate, to reform the pesticide approval procedure, and to set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use. Also the Monsanto Bayer merger is under investigation. There has been a lot of public pressure on the merger authorities to prevent the Bayer – Monsanto merger. Too much power, bad for farmers and consumers is the general opinion. But the EU Commission has now launched an in-depth investigation.

Food: 53% contain glyphosate residues

According to Monsanto Tribunal, the French organisation Générations Futures conducted tests on food products found in supermarkets. They found out that 53% of them contained glyphosate residues. Such results show the pervasive nature of glyphosate-containing herbicides. Combined with the important work of health and environmental organizations, they should carry weight on the debates over glyphosate re-authorization in the EU.  Consumers’ groups have been conducting a series of tests with food products in the U.S. Glyphosate was found in many of them, including the famous ‘all natural’ Ben & Jerry’s ice creams, from the company Unilever. The Organic Consumers Association is now pushing the brand to go organic.

KEEP READING ON ORGANIC-MARKET.INFO

Farmers Sequestering Carbon for Better Soil Health

/by

Author: Brian Todd | Published: October 23, 2017

Where do you keep your carbon?

If you’re Jon Luhman, you’re trying to sock some away in the ground. Preferably for a rainy day.

Luhman and his son, Jared Luhman, raise beef cows, black beans and corn, plus forage for the cattle — all of it organic — on a little more than 700 acres at Dry Creek Red Angus farm, northwest of Goodhue.

In the process, Luhman is putting carbon back into the soil, a process he said helps his farm in a multitude of ways.

“The number one reason is for fertility,” he said. “Its a big benefit for production. It absorbs more moisture. So there’s more water infiltration, more organic matter and less tillage.”

In fact, a pound of organic matter — which consists of 58 percent carbon — can hold as much as six pounds of water in the soil, according to University of Minnesota Extension. In sandy soil, organic matter and the water it holds can make the difference between a successful crop and crop failure in a dry year.

All of this, he said, leads to his motto: “Leave the soil in a better state than when we started.”

Promoting benefits

That’s the message Shona Snater said she hopes other farmers hear when they attend field days organized by the Land Stewardship Project. Snater, a member of the LSP’s soil health team, said that while the benefits of adding carbon to the soil — essentially a form of carbon sequestration — has a positive effect in the battle against climate change, it is important to let farmers understand the economic and agricultural benefits of the practice.

 

“We want to promote the positive benefits,” she said. “Maybe not just for climate change, but for their own profitability.”

KEEP READING ON THE POST-BULLETIN

Grass-Fed Beef and Black Locust: 30 Years of Silvopasture

/by

Published: January 18, 2017

In Watkins Glen, New York, 45 minutes from Ithaca, is Angus Glen Farm. Here, the Chedzoy Family runs 100 head of cattle over 310 acres of pasture and silvopasture. Silvopasture is defined as the integration of grazing animals into an existing forest, and/or the establishment of tree rows on grazing land. Brett Chedzoy, in addition to working with Cornell Extension, manages the land’s beef herd and forestry enterprises. Brett’s background is in forestry, but he is both a forester and a grazier. Brett met his wife, Maria, in Argentina, while working with the Peace Corps. He returned to the U.S. with silvopasture techniques from down south. We’d like to extend our thanks to Brett for walking us around his farm, and being incredibly open with his successes and failures over the past 30 years. Brett also manages a silvopasture forum, linked here for those that would like to read more and continue the conversation.

Well-managed silvopasture does not consist of running pigs in the woods, but should be thought of as holistic planned grazing under an established canopy or in between rows of trees in a plantation. Animals must be quickly rotated through partially-shaded paddocks, such that their impact does not disturb the trees’ root systems. If pigs or cattle are left in the woods for too long, they will compact the trees roots and slowly kill the canopy. At that, the trees will not show signs of stress until they are already on their deathbeds, and it is very difficult to bring them back to health once they have been damaged. Brett runs 100,000 lbs. of cattle (100 animals or so), through 110 permanent paddocks. His paddocks are fenced with high-tensile wire. He grazes the animals for eight months of the year, and bale-grazes them for another four. Bale grazing consists of feeding animals hay on dormant paddocks in the winter. Living barns of thick conifer trees protect the cattle from cold winds in the winter. The 2016 summer drought was not an issue for Brett, because the trees in his pastures held onto the winter’s moisture.

KEEP READING ON PROPAGATE

New Study Finds Nature Is Vital to Beating Climate Change

/by

Published: October 16, 2017

Better stewardship of the land could have a bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced and stored in forests, farmland, grasslands and wetlands using natural climate solutions.

The peer-reviewed study, led by scientists from The Nature Conservancy and 15 other institutions, and published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, expanded and refined the scope of land-based climate solutions previously assessed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The findings are expected to bolster efforts to ensure that large scale protection, restoration, and improved land management practices needed to stabilize climate change are achieved while meeting the demand for food and fiber from global lands.

Accounting for cost constraints, the researchers calculated that natural climate solutions could reduce emissions by 11.3 billion tonnes per year by 2030 – equivalent to halting the burning of oil , and offering 37% of the emissions reductions needed to hold global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by 2030. Without cost constraints, natural climate solutions could deliver emissions reductions of 23.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, close to a third (30%) more than previous estimates .

Mark Tercek, CEO The Nature Conservancy said: “Today our impacts on the land cause a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. The way we manage the lands in the future could deliver 37% of the solution to climate change. That is huge potential, so if we are serious about climate change, then we are going to have to get serious about investing in nature, as well as in clean energy and clean transport. We are going to have to increase food and timber production to meet the demand of a growing population, but we know we must do so in a way that addresses climate change.”

KEEP READING ON PHYS.ORG

Global Warming ‘Costing Taxpayers Billions.’ Here’s How to Fix It.

/by

Another report sounding the alarm about climate change.

Another missed opportunity to talk about the most promising solution: regenerative agriculture.

The New York Times yesterday cited a new report by the notoriously conservative Government Accountability Office (GAO), which said “climate change is costing taxpayers billions.”

CNN also reported on the GAO study, which calls on Trump to “craft appropriate responses.”

The CNN coverage noted several initiatives to combat climate change undertaken under the Obama administration—the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to lower carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis, and the Paris climate agreement, which saw almost every country agree to voluntary limits on future carbon emissions.

The current climate-denying Trump administration wants to scrap those and other climate initiatives, in favor of prioritizing corporate profits.

But that’s not why I’m writing today. I’m writing because once again, a major report on the costs—financial, social, environmental, political—of doing nothing to slow runaway global warming focuses exclusively on reducing carbon emissions.  The new report fails to mention that even if we achieved zero emissions tomorrow, we’re still in big trouble—unless we draw down and sequester the billions of tons of carbon already in the atmosphere.

Once again, a major report on global warming fails to acknowledge that we have the tools readily at our disposal to draw down that carbon. They are the regenerative agriculture and land-use practices outlined in a recent Stanford Woods Institute report, which says:

“If you want to do something about global warming, look under your feet. Managed well, soil’s ability to trap carbon dioxide is potentially much greater than previously estimated, according to Stanford researchers who claim the resource could “significantly” offset increasing global emissions. They call for a reversal of federal cutbacks to related research programs to learn more about this valuable resource.”

The federal government has no problem subsidizing—to the tune of $20 billion/year—GMO monoculture crops that degrade the soil and play a major role in making global warming worse.

But Congress wants to cut back on research that would help us improve soil health as a means of combating global warming?

Fortunately, other governments are incorporating “the soil solution” into their policies and plans to combat global warming. The most significant is France’s “4 for 1000: Soils for Food Security and Climate” Initiative launched by the French government at the Paris Climate Summit in December 2015.

In the U.S., some states are taking steps of their own to enact regenerative agriculture policies, notably California, Vermont and Massachusetts.

If your state isn’t on the list, maybe it’s time to start building a Regeneration Movement in your own community?

We can no longer ignore our best hope for averting climate catastrophe. If federal lawmakers won’t acknowledge the soil solutiion, we need to make sure our local and state officials get on board.

How Climate Change and Wars Are Increasing World Hunger

/by

Author: Leah Samberg | Published: October 18, 2017

Around the globe, about 815 million people—11 percent of the world’s population—went hungry in 2016, according to the latest data from the United Nations. This was the first increase in more than 15 years.

Between 1990 and 2015, due largely to a set of sweeping initiatives by the global community, the proportion of undernourished people in the world was cut in half. In 2015, UN member countries adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which doubled down on this success by setting out to end hunger entirely by 2030. But a recent UN report shows that, after years of decline, hunger is on the rise again.

As evidenced by nonstop news coverage of floods, fires, refugees and violence, our planet has become a more unstable and less predictable place over the past few years. As these disasters compete for our attention, they make it harder for people in poor, marginalized and war-torn regions to access adequate food.

I study decisions that smallholder farmers and pastoralists, or livestock herders, make about their crops, animals and land. These choices are limited by lack of access to services, markets or credit; by poor governance or inappropriate policies; and by ethnic, gender and educational barriers. As a result, there is often little they can do to maintain secure or sustainable food production in the face of crises.

The new UN report shows that to reduce and ultimately eliminate hunger, simply making agriculture more productive will not be enough. It also is essential to increase the options available to rural populations in an uncertain world.

Conflict and climate change threaten rural livelihoods

Around the world, social and political instability are on the rise. Since 2010, state-based conflict has increased by 60 percent and armed conflict within countries has increased by 125 percent. More than half of the food-insecure people identified in the UN report (489 million out of 815 million) live in countries with ongoing violence. More than three-quarters of the world’s chronically malnourished children (122 million of 155 million) live in conflict-affected regions.

KEEP READING ON ECOWATCH

Reducir la deforestación e incrementar captura de CO2 en el suelo, una estrategia climática y de seguridad alimentaria

/by
 

 Publicado: 02 de octubre 2017

Aunque los países buscan reducir sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, muchos ven potencial en sus bosques y granjas. El sector de uso de la tierra, que incluye la agricultura y la silvicultura, contribuye a aproximadamente el 25 por ciento de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero causadas por el hombre que están contribuyendo al cambio climático. Al mismo tiempo, la vegetación, tanto natural como agrícola, absorbe el CO2 de la atmósfera y puede almacenarlo en la biomasa y el suelo.

“El sector del uso de la tierra es clave para la mitigación exitosa del cambio climático –afirma el investigador del Instituto Internacional para el Análisis de Sistemas Aplicados (IIASA, por sus siglas en inglés), Stefan Frank, quien dirigió el estudio. “Pero proporcionar una cantidad cada vez mayor de biomasa para la producción de energía para sustituir los combustibles fósiles y al mismo tiempo reducir las emisiones del sector de uso de la tierra, por ejemplo, a través de un impuesto al carbono, también podría tener el efecto de elevar los precios de los alimentos y reducir la disponibilidad de alimentos”.

En el estudio, Frank y sus colegas exploraron los impactos de las políticas de mitigación climática sobre los precios de los alimentos. Examinaron los impactos potenciales de la acción global, representada por un impuesto sobre el carbono, y las políticas regionales y nacionales.

LEER MÁS AQUÍ
LEER MÁS ARTÍCULOS EN ESPAÑOL AQUÍ

¿Por qué el cambio climático le ‘pega’ más a los pobres?

/by
 

 Publicado: 17 de octubre 2017

“Tal como suceden las cosas en el mundo, el derecho es un tema del que tratan sólo los que son iguales entre sí por su poder, en tanto que los fuertes imponen su poder, tocándoles a los débiles padecer lo que deben padecer”. Esta frase de la ‘Historia de la guerra del Peloponeso’ de Tucídides es la filosofía de la administración de Donald Trump.

Por lo tanto, dos de sus asesores, HR McMaster y Gary Cohn, escribieron en mayo que: “El mundo no es una ‘comunidad global’ sino una arena donde las naciones, las figuras no gubernamentales y las empresas se enfrentan y compiten por obtener la ventaja”. 

Esta perspectiva amoral acarrea serias implicaciones. En ninguna otra área son los efectos secundarios globales más significativos y la cooperación más vital que en el clima. La inacción garantiza que los pobres, de hecho, sufrirán. 

Ésta es la conclusión de un capítulo sobre el impacto económico de los choques climáticos en la más reciente edición de las Perspectivas de la Economía Mundial (WEO, por sus siglas en inglés) del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI). 

LEER MÁS AQUÍ
LEER MÁS ARTÍCULOS EN ESPAÑOL AQUÍ

Soils Aren’t Dirt – Local Scientist Urges Priority for Healthly Land Use

/by

Author: Petre Williams-Raynor | Published: October 19, 2017

With soils the second largest carbon store after oceans, one local scientist is insisting they must be given their due as Jamaica boosts efforts to minimise the threats of a changing climate.

“I think that any discussion surrounding climate change mitigation and adaptation should involve soils, at least to some extent,” said Dr Adrian Spence, research fellow at the International Centre for the Environment and Nuclear Sciences at the University of the West Indies, Mona.

The emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are fuel for a changing climate that manifests in not only warmer global temperatures, but also increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise and extreme weather events, the likes of which were recently felt with the passage of hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Jose.

“Soils contain huge amounts of carbon and this can either be a source or a sink. We have almost 30 per cent of the CO2 in the atmosphere coming from the soil. Because of this huge amount of carbon, even small changes, perturbations of that could significantly increase CO2 concentration in the atmosphere,” added the biogeochemist.

LAND USE CHALLENGE

Among the things that can bring that about, Spence explained, are changes in land use and certain other agricultural practices.

“Land use and land use changes is the second leading cause of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, second to CO2 from fossil combustion (electricity, motor vehicle emissions, etc),” he noted.

The caution to value soils is also reflected in information out of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN), in a 2015 article titled ‘Soils help to combat and adapt to climate change’.

“When managed sustainably, soils can play an important role in climate change mitigation by storing carbon (carbon sequestration) and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere,” reads the article published in the year that was designated ‘International Year of Soils’ by the UN.

“Conversely, if soils are managed poorly or cultivated through unsustainable agricultural practices, soil carbon can be released into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 which can contribute to climate change,” it added.

KEEP READING ON THE GLEANER