Comments on: Bacteria Made Your Lunch

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:09:03 +0000

Oops, forgot to say that I’m really sorry for the losses that the Georgia farmers will sustain until sanity is restored. The prisoners don’t seem to be able to do the job. I’ve got a detailed suggestion here

http://passionmod.blogspot.com/ (read down about the middle of the second post)

for how to solve this problem, and maybe your troubles will get people to listen

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:06:17 +0000

I just want to say, thanks Georgia. You will be a laboratory for what it means to go into total denial of our need for guest (yes, guest) workers.

@Greg below. Yes, things like Roundup are “benign,” in comparison to erosion and pollution causing tillage. Actually, roundup ready crops were a disaster for DuPont. Their ALS inhibitors were all displaced. Before RR crops the herbicide group at DuPont was actually predicting that it would no longer be necessary to look for new herbicides. Um, NOT.

By: Bacteria Made Your Lunch – Revisited – Sustainablog

Bacteria Made Your Lunch – Revisited – Sustainablog — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:31:19 +0000

[...] to tap into almost limitless supplies of two key nutrients – nitrogen and cellulose. I wrote a post about this when I first started blogging, but I want to revisit the topic. Image via [...]

By: Five Benefits of Organic Farming | Sustainablog

Five Benefits of Organic Farming | Sustainablog — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:10:59 +0000

[...] The cover crop can include legumes which have the ability to “fix” nitrogen from the air (with the help of a bacterial symbionts) and reduce the amount of nitrogen fertilizer that is needed for the following crop. This [...]

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:30:57 +0000

@ravi This reminds me of Steve’s first posts on the site where he mentioned those “benign herbicides” *LOL* I guess that comes with the territory having worked for DuPont.

@don I believe the green house gas issues invovled in meat production are in the production of corn and soy which are then fed to the animals. As well as all the forest (and rain forests) cleared. It doesn’t help that the feces from CAFOs create even more pollution in both the air, ground and water.

I wouldn’t complain at all if companies were forced to pay for the externalities of their actions. I can’t pollute my neighbor’s yard with animal feces, why can a corporation?

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:05:24 +0000

Evz,
Thanks for the defense and call for civility. We obviously disagree about many things but we can talk. I really appreciate that.
Steve

By: Evz

Evz — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:03:20 +0000

I hate to say it: I agree with Steve!

Don, wow, your comments are unproductive… debate isn’t so much about calling people names as exchanging ideas… You’re just saying ‘oh, yeah? well you’re stupid!’ without providing any ideas or arguments in support of any point you’re trying to make. Why even post? Is this 2nd grade recess, or what?

Raising cattle, at least in an industrial situation (compared to a couple of backyard cows in Nepal or something) clearly *does* contribute troublesome emissions into the atmosphere… according to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, animal agriculture is “a major player” in climate change and “a major threat to [the]
environment”– generating 18% of human-origin greenhouse gasses (much more than cars, SUVs, & other vehicles). Sooo… I don’t think Steve can really be faulted for bringing the issue up, in an article about cows.

It’s hard to understand, though, why you’d be so offended by it! Could it be that everyone who sees things differently than you *must* be ‘a retard’? Wow, what a well-thought-out argument. <-(sarcasm!)

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:13:46 +0000

Well, Don, I guess I will have to stand by my comment even if it is “the single most idiotic thing you have ever heard.” When you combine the methane that cows burp with that from the manure it is one of the larger sources from agriculture. That is a small part of the overall greenhouse gas picture, but my reasoning for wanting to see it addressed is that it would make feed conversion more efficient and it would generate a source of non-imported fuel that the farmers could use to reduce their costs. I don’t think that sounds “idiotic” at all

By: Steve Savage

Steve Savage — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:00:57 +0000

Ravi,
You are right that producers make their choices based on the bottom line, but this is not a highly profitable business. It is extremely competitive and the profit margins are low. A company, corporate or not, has to make “bottom line decisions” or it is out of business.

I don’t know how many consumers would be willing or able to pay more for meat produced differently. It would be interesting to see a poll on that, but usually consumers don’t actually do what they say they would do.

As for Atrazine, it is definitely not “by far one of the most toxic” pesticides used. It’s acute toxicity is only a little higher than table salt. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/mp3QT000.pdf

It has been under scrutiny for a long time and is under EPA review again this year. We will see what happens.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:53:13 +0000

you are a retard “lets address the greenhouse gas issues” That is the single most idiotic comment i have ever read. Are you aware that the meat industry by means of animal feces produces less that 1 percent of all greenhouse gases. You narrow minded global warming freaks need to stop listening to the propaganda. Like i said your an idiot.