Gotta Love the Texas Rains! Unless you are a Global Warming Goober of Course . . .

The welcome and wet and thunderous rains that have so been welcomed by Texans are simply another angle for climate change/global warming fools.  Just like the drought years, now our rainy years, and no, it's not like parts of East Texas did not see wonderful life giving rains last year as well, etc....
But, this Spring, the awesome rains are rather all over our Great State, and it's garnered mainstream media mindless meanderings of monstrous mammals maiming the magnificence of Mother Earth . . .

Go figure . . . 

Oops!  The very ancient polled British White Cattle must be partly responsible right?  They've been
around for thousands of years, shame on them!  My herd must have brought the drought years to
upper Southeast Texas and now, thankfully, they've brought all the grand rain!!  Sounds like a win win :).

Climate Change May Have Souped Up Record-Breaking Texas Deluge

Deadly downpours flooded Texas and Oklahoma and may have been exacerbated by global warming

By Elizabeth Harball, Scott Detrow and ClimateWire | May 27, 2015

Large swaths of Houston were underwater yesterday after more than 10 inches of rain fell on the city during a 24-hour window.

The bulk of the rain came during intense Monday night thunderstorms, bringing America’s fourth-largest city to a standstill by yesterday morning. Major highways were flooded, schools and mass transit systems were shut down, rivers were swollen above flood stage, and the city’s Emergency Operations Center had declared a Level 1 emergency for the first time since Hurricane Ike struck in 2008. Houston Mayor Annise Parker proclaimed a state of disaster for the city yesterday afternoon.

Austin, San Antonio and several other central Texas communities also faced severe flooding over the weekend after several days of intense rain. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) described flooding along the Blanco River between Wimberley and San Marcos as a “tsunami-style” flood.

“This huge tidal wave of water just completely wiped out neighborhoods,” he said yesterday. Abbott has now declared a state of disaster in 46 counties or, as he put it, “literally from the Red River to the Rio Grande.”

Even before the worst of the Houston flooding, Abbott characterized the flooding as “absolutely massive.”

“This is the biggest flood this area of Texas has ever seen,” he said Monday. At least 17 people are dead in Texas and neighboring Oklahoma, according to the Associated Press, with dozens more still missing.

Speaking at the White House yesterday, President Obama pledged federal support for what he called “devastating, record-breaking floods.” He noted that Federal Emergency Management Agency personnel had already been deployed to Texas.

A state of emergency was declared for 44 Oklahoma counties as of Monday evening, and yesterday Obama made federal disaster aid available in the state. The National Weather Service on Sunday reported a record for total monthly rainfall set at Oklahoma City’s Will Rogers World Airport at 18.19 inches, shattering the previous record of 14.66 inches set in June of 1989.

‘It looked like a river’
The National Weather Service also reported that multiple daily maximum precipitation records were broken in a number of Texas cities over the long weekend. As of yesterday morning, the agency had recorded over 10 inches of rain in multiple locations in Harris County, where Houston is located, as well as in neighboring Fort Bend County.

Nicole Buergers, 34, a marketing manager at a Houston Internet marketing company, was on a date with her boyfriend Monday evening when they were temporarily stranded in a coffee shop in the Montrose neighborhood amid the downpour.

“The water really rose very quickly, and [we] were trapped,” Buergers said yesterday morning. “There were people coming in off the street—everyone was huddled in the coffee shop.”

Buergers was eventually driven home by another customer. She and many other Houston residents were homebound yesterday, unable to travel to their offices due to flooded streets and highways.

Houston resident David Musso, 35, shared a photo on Twitter yesterday morning of floodwaters covering the intersection of Waugh Drive and Memorial Drive, which he usually passes on the commute to his marketing job.

SEE ALSO:

• Evolution: Did Affluence Spur the Rise of Modern Religions? | 
• Health: The Conflicted History of Alcohol in Western Civilization | 
• Mind & Brain: Is Food Addiction Making Us Fat? | 
• Space: Dark Matter Particles Interact with Themselves | 
• Technology: Timeline: The Amazing Multimillion-Year History of Processed Food | 
• More Science: The Flavor Connection

“It looked like a river,” Musso said in an interview.

The Red Cross has opened 30 shelters in Texas and Oklahoma as flooding has increased in recent weeks. The organization said more than 200 people spent the night in its shelters over the weekend.

The holiday weekend deluge peaked an unusually wet May for the Lone Star State. The current situation is in stark contrast to conditions seen in Texas just one year ago, when drought blanketed over 70 percent of the state, with nearly a third of it falling under the U.S. Drought Monitor’s “extreme” category or worse, according to records kept by the National Drought Mitigation Center. On May 14, the Drought Center reported that “exceptional drought” had completely dissipated from Texas and Oklahoma for the first time since July 2012.

A climate change link?
As is often the case when extreme weather hits these days, talk turned to whether climate change played a role.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she believes global warming likely contributed to the extreme conditions. Ekwurzel noted that the combination of a burgeoning El Niño and record-breaking ocean surface temperatures in April likely “revs up the hydrological cycle” in the region.

Ekwurzel added, “When you have a warmer atmosphere, then you have the capability to hold more water vapor. When storms organize, there’s much more water you can wring out of the atmosphere compared to the past.”

In a Facebook post Sunday, high-profile climate researcher Katharine Hayhoe, director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Center, stated that “climate change will affect us in the ways we’re already vulnerable to climate and weather today, and Texas is no exception.”

While extreme weather events like droughts and floods occur naturally in Texas, precipitation in the state is becoming more variable, making droughts more potent and increasing the risk of heavy rainfall and flooding, Hayhoe said.

“Science does not say that climate change is CAUSING the extreme rain and drought we’re seeing across the U.S. today, and in recent years,” she said. “Just like steroids make a baseball player stronger, climate change EXACERBATES many of our weather extremes, making many of them, on average, worse than they would have been naturally.”

Rain remains in the forecast for portions of central Texas this week. The National Weather Service has issued a hazardous weather outlook warning of scattered thunderstorms that “may reach strong to severe levels, with flash flooding from heavy rainfall.”

Still, Houston Mayor Parker sees the weather as a positive development. “We believe we’re going to get a break from the weather,” she said yesterday. “If you look at the radar right now, it’s sort of the typical summer weather pattern with brief pop-up thunderstorms. If we can avoid any significant precipitation for the next 24 to 48 hours, the bayous should be completely back in their banks.”

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

Day's Long Gone -

No - It's Not a Pic of a Cow - Working on Finding
One That Would Be Appropriate!

I tend to recall this poem every summer about now, so thought I'd share it again . . . hope all those overwhelmed right now with drought conditions in the USA and around the world, have some relief soon and hear the welcome patter of rain drops on their roof tops.

Slip-N-Slide Junes

It’s hot as Hades in the noonday sun.
Sweat drips and runs and cuts through the dust
Of my reddened face, as my breath comes harsh
In the June heat that once was meant for fun.
I wipe my slick brow, my eyes sting with sweat --
and my hot mind rolls back to days long gone.
. . . in the days long gone of Slip-n-Slide Junes.


We slipped our bums down the wet yellow sheet -
no worries about a third degree burn.
Barefoot and bareheaded we ran through the woods,
no fear of a clearing causing scorch to our nose,
or our brains slow baking like a casserole.
Many miles we walked the neighborhood streets,
never a care that we’d blister our feet.

And mud-puddles! What a supreme delight!
Our bare feet splashing each puddle in sight!
Many’s the time we snuck soft out the door
While the thunder rumbled and the rain still poured.
Our giggles of joy, our screams at the glory,
seem a faint memory in the days long gone.

A rope we would string between two pear trees,
and a blanket we would pitch o’er the top.
And in our TeePee we’d camp for the night,
tell scary stories, play the old Ouija,
tryin’ our darnedest to stay up all night!
Seems a faint memory in days long gone.

Hot are the days, but as well are the nights,
like a smothering blanket of clinging heat -
a hot flash like yo’ Momma don’t need,
like an evil conjure from old Ouija.
It's hot as Hades in the noon day sun -
in the June heat that once was meant for fun.
In Slip-N-Slide Junes of days long gone.

Copyright ©Katie.Flippin 2010, All Rights Reserved


.

Climate Change is Not a Modern Day Topic - It was Refuted by the U.S. Government in the Early 1900's

Climate change is certainly a hot topic right now, from Al Gore's latest laughable, pitiful and puzzling efforts to get in the limelight, to lots of finger pointing at Hurricane Irene and the Texas drought as proofs.  I understand the premise of the science that backs up the global warming gurus -- but as long as livestock continue to be falsely targeted as the greatest contributor to climate change -- my ears will remain deaf and the motives of the likes of Al Gore and the United Nations quite suspect.

I was very surprised when I stumbled on an old U.S. Department of Agriculture article from 1908 entitled, "The So-Called Change of Climate in the Semi-Arid West".  Clearly there were alarmists spouting off about human caused climate change to such an extent that it warranted a rebuttal 103 years ago, and I would say it was soundly rebutted as the poppycock it was then -- and is now to a large extent, as cows continue to be touted as the greatest cause of global warming, and a vegan diet necessary for us common folks:

"The former Vice President also said we need to initiate an organic vegetarian diet for the general population since industrial agriculture is contributing to the relentless, growing problem of global warming. According to Gore, meat eating has prompted forests to clear due to higher demands for cattle in the interview, adding that synthetic nitrogen use in fertilizers continues to contribute to global warming." (Al Gore, 8/29/11)

Sunday, August 28 - View of our Parched Pastures and a Fire Top above the Trees -- on Monday evening there was another fire so close that big particles of ash fell around us at the cattle pens just to the left in this photo.

The Texas drought is not a weather event brought on by human caused climate change (nor some divine judgment by an angry God as the likes of a Louis Farrakhan tell their followers), and neither is Hurricane Irene a storm to be blamed on climate change.  Certainly, the level of carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is a factor in our weather, but to presume that the human and livestock activities on the land mass of the United States can somehow change the climate of the world, for better or worse, is simply preposterous.  We can't allow ourselves to be used to "set an example for the world" that literally destroys our economy while the rest of the world laughs their butts off in to the next century -- and our EPA is now being used as a tool to backdoor accomplish that so-called example.

The drought of 1886/1887 that I blogged a couple of weeks back was a severe Texas and Plains area drought, much like the one occurring now.  Coincidentally, just a mere couple years later, in May 1889, there was a "great storm" that severely impacted the northeast, and caused the catastrophic Johnstown Flood in Pennsylvania.  This storm occurred on the heals of quite abnormally high levels of spring and summer rainfall in the northeast.  Sound familiar?  There has been well above average rainfall in much of the northeast this spring and summer.  This was the weather forecast for Memorial Day 1889 in Pennsylvania, from The Tribune :

"A Storm of considerable energy has developed in Southwestern Texas, which is now centered in the Mississippi Valley, moving northeastward. General rain has fallen within the track of the storm. Elsewhere fair weather has prevailed. The temperature is unusually low throughout the lake region, heavy frost having occurred in many places and light frosts are also reported from the county districts in this locality, with no perceptible damage, however. The temperature has risen slightly in all other districts. The barometer has fallen decidedly in the Mississippi Valley with manifestations of cyclonic disturbances, and is highest in the extreme Northwest."

I certainly wish that the above weather forecast was actually for Labor Day Weekend 2011, without the subsequent heavy rain and flooding in the Northeast!  No doubt in the days that followed the devastation of the great Johnstown Flood there was a creepy person somewhere at a podium postulating about God's divine judgment on Pennsylvania.  Hopefully, someone laid him out with a good punch of divine judgment to his belly paunch.

Did you know there is now yet another factor of great import in projecting carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and will require new 'climate change' analysis models?  Check this out: Nitrogen in Rocks Could Help Counter Climate Change.  Now why is this not headline news this morning all over the world?  And just what else is out there yet to be discovered about the resourcefulness of this grand and ancient earth we all call home? 

J.West's El Presidente standing in a patch of green that remains over our sewer, it is rare for the cows to ever eat this grass.  What must he think looking out over his pasture at nothing but dead grass and worm eating cattle egrets?  Is he blaming himself for Climate Change?

Here are some excerpts from the 1908 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's 'The So-Called Change in Climate . . .' :

"It is the man that has changed, not the climate, and the face of nature has changed with efforts far exceeding those of the early eastern pioneers. The western man who has observed the wilderness blossom as the rose -  decries his own power when he charges to the account of change of climate the blessings resulting from his own initiative. It required much more than the buzzing of the drones while the climate was "changing" to make orchards, meadows, grain fields, and vineyards in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. Perseverance placed the city of Denver on the site of the Indian tepee in the valley of the upper Platte, and "change of climate " did not plant Salt Lake City in the deserts of Utah."

"Droughts, hot winds, and high temperatures are not impossible in any section at any time. Francis Parkman says that during the summer and fall of 1764, at the time of Pontiac's war, a great drought prevailed over the region north of the Ohio River, and British soldiers suffered great hardships in navigating the streams. Yet the settler had not then had much chance with his ax, and the lands were covered with an interminable forest."

"Prof. Alfred J. Henry, in Climatology of the United States, says:

'The greatest drought this country has experienced in the last one hundred years, both as to Intensity and extent of territory covered, culminated in the middle Mississippi and Missouri valleys in 1894, and in the Lake region and Atlantic coast districts in 1895. The drought of 1894 was the culmination of a period of deficient precipitation and high temperatures that began during the early summer of 1893. . .'

'In September, 1908, the Susquehanna River was lower than it had been in more than one hundred years, and instances were published of boys playing ball in the river bed of the upper Ohio.'

'In the Middle States, as well as the entire region between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi River north of Texas, the great hot wave of July, 1901, broke records in many sections, the temperatures ranging from 109° to 116° in the shade. These figures were published by the Weather Bureau at the time, and clearly show that abnormally high temperatures or hot winds are not confined to any particular locality.'"

"The semiarid States are contending against stupendous forces in the form of the great air currents, which are charged with billions of tons of moisture and dust before they come within a thousand miles of the Middle West. . . . It is evident, then, that the cultivation and forestation of the semiarid region, even though (if) they had proceeded much farther than they have, could not change the climate. . . In spite of the great differences in density of population and in the proportion of land improved, the records show that no single part of the areas mentioned, or any other part of the vast territory remaining in the country, has been exempt from droughty periods."

" . . . climatic changes have been as numerous as the epochs in geological history. . . If the ancient ancestors of the mound builders could be aroused from their slumbers, their medicine men would relate a hoary legend to the effect that the waters of the southern seas once tossed over the western plains, and the great Southwest and washed the feet of the Rockies."

"Aristotle, the sage, one of the greatest of scientific observers, flourished about two thousand three hundred years ago; since his day there have been many scientific observers; yet in all these years there has been no record of a permanent change of climate in any part of the known world."

"Western Asia, northern Africa, and portions of North America were called deserts in remote ages, and we still believe they will continue deserts during the vast periods of time to come. The Chaldeans, ancient Persians, Ninevites, and Egyptians exerted untold effort in producing verdure (green growth) that succeeding peoples have allowed to disappear before the blistering desolation. Geological evidence shows that extensive forests once flourished in these regions, and remains of highly creditable irrigating works have lately been discovered in the Arizona desert. But man's efforts did not change the climate in these regions. When his efforts ceased, the desert reoccupied the territory which he had for a time subdued to his needs."

". . . such as the great storm of 1889, originated by the intermingling of masses of warm air from the equator and cold air from the pole, and which cover a greater extent of the earth's surface than the territory of the United States, and then imagine the influence of any semiarid State lying in the pathway of such a disturbance, we can understand that a whole series of States, much less the man with his plow, is unable to control climate."

Source: Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1908; The So-Called Change of Climate in the Semiarid West,  by Richard H. Sullivan, Local Forecaster, Weather Bureau, Wichita, Kansas

"In Texas the Drought now Extends from the Western Grazing Country Eastward to Louisiana"

I could almost imagine in the beginning of the article below that the writer was talking about the current Texas drought, that has indeed extended eastward to Louisiana. For certain, I find some degree of hopefulness in the future after reading about droughts of old that eventually corrected themselves. I know it will happen logically, but it is easy to start thinking it may never end! This old article is also a bit instructive of what conditions could be in Texas next Spring, if indeed we have no more rain.

I also found a very informative article on the Texas drought of 1984. I actually had no idea there had been one, but I wasn't much focused on rainfall in 1984. The drought of 1984 was severe and had devastating and long lasting consequences. Read "Dust to Dust", published in the Texas Monthly, October 1984, for an eye-opening hard truth in both words and photos of just how bad drought can be to a livestock producer.

The following weather observations are excerpts from:
Monthly Weather Review - By United States Army Signal Corps, United States, April 1887

J.West's S.S. Carter, (See Video clip)
Standing over a Water Leak to get Cool, August 2011



DROUGHT: "Although rain accompanied the area of low that crossed Texas, the Indian Territory, and Kansas on the 18th, yet at the end of the month the long drought was practically unbroken, except in Kansas, where the rainfall of the 18th was quite heavy. In Texas the drought now extends from the western grazing country eastward to Louisiana, but decreases in severity as it approaches the eastern boundary. In central and eastern Texas, embracing the principal cotton-growing counties of the state, only a few light showers have fallen during the mouth."

The following notes are from observers:

"At San Antonio, Tex., although light rain fell on the 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, and 16th, the total precipitation of the month was only 0.60 of an inch. Reports from adjoining counties indicate that their condition is even worse than the country immediately adjacent to San Antonio. The observer states that the dry grass from last year is exhausted, and as none has grown this spring the only forage for cattle is the prickly pear. Stock are dying rapidly. Numbers of families have deserted their homes and farms in search of a more favored locality. All hope of making the usual grain crop this season has been abandoned."

"New Ulm, Austin Co., Texas.: all interests are suffering from the drought; cattle are in need of grass and water; corn and cotton are in bad condition and will have to be replanted if rain falls. The normal April rainfall for this section, as deduced from the observations of the past fifteen years, is 3.84 inches; the total of the current month is only 0.17 inch, and is the least that has fallen in any April during that time. The normal rainfall of the seven months ending April 30th is 31.70 inches; the total amount of the corresponding months in 1880-'87 is 7.92, a deficiency of 23.78 inches. In 1873 eight inches of rain fell in April."

"Belleville, Republic Co., Kansas.: the first seventeen days of the month were remarkable for dry weather and the frequency and force of dust storms. On the 3rd and 9th, during wind storms, dust filled the air to such an extent that buildings one hundred feet distant were visible only at intervals.  Independence, Montgomery Co., Kansas.: the first heavy rain in this section since September 4, 1886, fell on the 16th and 17th. On the 3rd, during a wind storm, the sky was obscured by dust."

"Salina, Salina Co., Kansas.: the month has been unusually dry, the total precipitation, 2.06 inches, being the least that has fallen in any April during the past five years."

"Grand Coteau, Saint Landry Parish, La.: the total amount of rainfall for the five months from December, 1880, to April, 1887, inclusive, 12.20 inches, is less than one-half of the normal amount; the soil is dry and crops late."

"Tucson, Arizona.: cattle are dying in large numbers from want of water and food; the Rillito River is dry for the first time in many years."

 

J.West's Bountiful Brigit
 Having a Drink from the Sprinkler,  August 2011

 "It should be noted that the period of observation is not sufficient to enable a perfectly satisfactory deduction, but it is plain that there has been a marked increase in precipitation during the last twenty years. The apparent falling off in the last five years is not unexpected, and does not indicate a permanent diminution, as it is mostly due to the small amount in 1886, and there have been four annual records previously, with a greater falling off than in 1886. We may conclude that the scarcity of rainfall in 1886 is not unprecedented, and that from past observations there is no proof of a permanent diminution in precipitation. Many more years' observations will be needed to establish a marked secular variation."

Well, there certainly have been many more years of observation, about 125 years of observation and recording of weather in the USA.  This 1887 writer was no doubt right -- the scarcity of rainfall was not unprecedented -- and there was no permanent diminution in rainfall.  Of course, a climate change fanatic or global warming guru might point to the increase in numbers of methane belching cattle in the prairies of Texas, Louisiana and the Indian Territory as the primary culprit of the 1886/1887 drought -- and claim it was without precedence, and the humble bovine has been bringing on brutal heat waves in Texas ever since!

The 19th Century Cow Theory vs the 21st Century Bull Theory

The Cow Theory



 The phrase “the cow theory” caught my attention while doing some research in the newspaper archives of New Zealand. Today’s world is filled with theories about the cow. Theoretically, belching cows are one of the greatest contributors to climate change -- theoretically, cattle raisers are inhumane humans who rear animals to “kill” in a world where killing a “sentient” animal is no longer necessary -- theoretically, all the food a fattening steer or mama cow consumes could solve world hunger by feeding the cow’s ration to humans -- theoretically, small beef cattle farms are environmentally degrading to the soils of grasslands and to the water supply -- theoretically, we should be assessed new “land taxes” so we will better appreciate our privilege of rearing environmentally friendly cattle or grass.

All theory, yet broad assumptions and bad science are being used by national and international institutions of government in a quite God-Like approach to policy changes aimed at mitigating the negative environmental impacts assumed under these “theories”.

What follows is the text of the article entitled “The Cow Theory”, published in the Otago Witness, an old New Zealand newspaper. I very much like this 135 year old life sustaining ‘cow theory’ over those running rampant today.


Pauperism Exterminated by Means of a Cow
Otago Witness, Issue 1212, 20 February 1875, Page 18, Full Text Follows:

"Speaking of the cow theory— that is, that a man with five acres of land can maintain himself, his family, and his Cow— a writer in the Farmer's Magazine, for the last month, has the following —

"On Sir Baldwin Leighton's estate in Shropshire, England, pauperism is almost exterminated by means of the cow, it being the rule rather than the exception for a labourer to have sums varying from £20 to £80 put by in the savings bank out of the proceeds of the sale of the butter. I have seen the books with the sums entered to their credit. Most cottages have two or three fields attached to the holding, mostly laid down in grass. The cow, however, is only a second string to the labourer's bow, and does not in any way interfere with his giving efficient service to the farmer (Sir Leighton), as the cow can be looked after by the wife, who makes the butter and sends it to market by the carrier."

We have frequently called attention to the great boon a good cow is to the poor man, and the large profits of a good dairy. This is especially the case where only a few cows are kept and are well cared for.

A friend of ours, with three grade shorthorn cows, has realized no less than ninety dollars from the product of each cow, in a single season, besides the milk and butter used in the family. But these favourable results depend upon two conditions, one or both of which we frequently see overlooked or disregarded, to wit : First, that we have a good cow — good in form, that a profitable disposition may be made of the carcass for beef, when the cow is no longer wanted for the dairy — and a liberal and steady milker.

It is incomprehensible that poor cows should ever be used when good ones can be obtained at so small an advance upon the common price. And this is especially true where feed is high, and the animal is kept with a view of supplying milk and butter for the family or market. Indeed, inferior cows should not be kept for any purpose, but should be slaughtered for beef as soon as their inferiority is discovered. To keep an ill-formed cow or a poor milker for a breeder is even worse economy than for the dairy, as in this way we perpetuate and multiply unprofitable stock.

The second condition for success with a dairy cow is, that she have plenty to eat and the best and kindest treatment. . . But in no instance does full pasture or a proper supply of other food in winter, or when pasture is short, pay better than in the management of the dairy cow — the more plentiful the feed, the greater will be, not only the yield, but also the absolute profit."

This 19th Century Cow Theory Supporting Families in the 21st Century?


J.West's Joey, British White Bull Calf




 Yes, this Cow Theory has merit and value to small farming today, whether it be cows, pigs, or chickens, or any of a number of different livestock species suitable for home growing. In the United States, there is a growing group of citizens taking up backyard chickens in our cities, others in rural areas selecting dual purpose cattle to provide their own milk and beef, wild hogs are still captured and 'fed out' to supplement the rural person's income -- those are but a few of the many instances today where small livestock farming is providing vital income and food to sustain households.

Across the world, small livestock farming plays a vital role. The industrious can and do raise livestock to improve the quality of their lives, or merely to sustain a ready source of food for their families. An excellent example of this is in the Philippines. What follows is an excerpt from a 2010 article "Raising Livestock in the Philippines", and it well illustrates the 19th Century Cow Theory alive and well and working to sustain families in the 21st century:

"Filipinos raise animals in order to improve the quality of their lives. Many families today, both in the provinces and in the cities, engage in livestock raising to have a secured supply of food, support their daily needs, and have an additional income. Just like having a vegetable garden in the backyard, tending animals prove financially rewarding if done in the right way."

"For many smallholder farmers, livestock are the only ready source of cash to buy the inputs they need to increase their crop production, like seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. Livestock income also goes towards buying things the farmers cannot make for themselves. And that includes paying for school fees. Income from cropping is highly seasonal, almost of it coming in just a few weeks after harvest. In contrast, small stock, with their high rates of reproduction and growth, can provide a regular source of income from sales. Larger animals, such as cattle, are a capital reserve, built up in good times to be used when crops are poor or when the family is facing large expenses, such as the cost of a wedding or a hospital bill."

In the progressive world of the 21st Century, we are faced with international efforts by the United Nations to bring the valuable function of the Cow Theory to an end. The United States is slated to be the proverbial 'guinea pig' for the world. Developing countries are slated to theoretically gain financially and environmentally from U.S. revenue generated by plans such as the now tabled 'Cap and Trade' bill much argued over by our U.S. Congress. Such taxation schemes could be said to be premised on the"Bull Theory".  Already, our own EPA has been granted via executive order broad and far-reaching authority to literally regulate the methane belches of your cattle -- if they so choose. 

It may be too late 10 or 20 years from now to turn back to the "Cow Theory", and rural areas across the globe will find the regulatory tape, fines, and fees resulting from carbon regulation and taxation a lot of Bull -- their lives forever changed and that of future generations.  So, get off the fence on this important issue, and keep your eyes and ears alert to the actions of the EPA, and support the efforts of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association to look out for for your land and your cattle.

Calving Time for a Small American Cow-Calf Farmer - Originally Published March 2010

 

This is Donna, a Popeye daughter, and part of our original herd

Global Warming and Cows -- refuting the notion that "cows are the greatest contributor to climate change" has become the focus of so much of my time and energy for several weeks now. Today, my time was more occupied with my actual real British White cows, one cow in particular. She's a cow I nicknamed Donna long ago, in honor of an elementary school classmate who was quite the dominating child -- enough so that I actually remember her taking charge of the classroom when I was in the 3rd grade. She might have been full of honey do this and that in the first and second grade as well, but I was quite occupied in those years with standing in corners and defending my right to 'talk too much', with which my teachers heartily disagreed. Did you ever have to stand in a corner and keep your nose precisely within a small circle? 

This morning I went out to make my cow check, which always starts with a count of each cow in two herds I have by the house. All was well with the smaller group in the more confined pasture by the house. The larger group of cows are one pasture over from the house on about 20 acres that is edged with a deep thicket of woods and a steep ravine, typical terrain in this area of the Pineywoods of East Texas. Each day I count the girls in this big pasture to make sure they're all there, and then look at their udder and their vulva and make a judgment as to whether it's time for any of them to move over one pasture to the one right beside the house, so they'll calve in this more protected pasture.

Well, this morning I was one cow short. I counted about three times, squinted a lot, cursed my aging eye sight, wished I'd brought the binoculars, and deeply regretted I was in flip-flops and shorts as the stinging weed is in full swing. I had no desire to walk across that entire pasture in search of the missing cow with stinging weed slapping and stinging my bare toes.

The next thing I wonder about is just who is missing, and I think of Donna. A couple of days before I had a nagging thought that she might just be ready, she was packing a lot of milk; but, her vulva showed no signs, and in the days prior I'd not spotted any sign of her losing her mucous plug, so I'd left her with the big herd. Sure enough, I scan the cows and I do not see my Donna anywhere. It's actually pretty amazing how a cow person can look at their herd and identify a lot of times each and every one, we don't need an ear tag, we know our cows! 

From Newborn to Handsome Young Bull Calf - Video Taken March 25th, and this Good-Lookin' Youngster was Ten Days Old (Halliburton Arlene is AKA Donna for Most of her Life) 



Dancing with Donna
So began the day of finding Donna, and then checking on my Donna's progress in having her much awaited baby calf. Donna was precisely where I did not want her, or any other of my cow's to be, when they were getting ready to calve. She had gone deep in to the wood thicket that edged the pasture, where most cows instinctively feel they can safely calve and protect their young. And you know, Donna may have been exactly right, but me being a know-it-all human herdswoman -- I disagreed.

Coyotes are an enormous threat in this neck of the Pineywoods of East Texas. They wake you up from a deep sleep with their shrill screaming, and you jump up and run to the door and flip on all the outside lights, and they instantly silence. You then know they are very close and they are looking for food -- and when your cows are calving you know what food they most prefer.

So, for about three hours, Donna and I had a bit of a dance. I located her and made myself a comfy spot where I could keep an eye on her -- that lasted about an hour. She wasn't quite ready to have the calf, and she certainly didn't like my intrusion -- I would look up from my book and through my binoculars see her looking straight at me, so of course she checked out better spots burrowed in ever deeper vines and briers.

I had a choice to make -- let her calve where she chose, or go into the woods and try to bring her out and hope like heck that it didn't have a detrimental impact on her putting a healthy calf on the ground. After about an hour of stressful watching and re-locating of Donna, I made the choice. I went in to the woods and got in behind her, briers slapping and scratching my bare legs, fortunately not my feet, as by then I'd at least had the sense to change my flip-flops in favor of my favorite LL Bean pasture shoes.

Success! Donna headed back to the open pasture with me trailing behind her and moving from side to side to direct her path as best I could through the nest of old briers and vines and trees in this native thicket. The rest of the herd were on the crest of the hill above the woods by then and noticed Donna coming out of the woods, and they came in closer to see what was up. I headed back to the pasture gate and gave the herd my regular call of "Hey Girls!", and like the good girls they are they followed me, and Donna came along as well, bringing up the rear of course, as she had a baby that was ready to come in to this world.

I easily sent the big herd into another adjacent pasture (these British White girls are very gentle and easy to move, and it is always good to have an adjacent pasture that is not occupied), and cut off Donna as she came with interest along with the herd. I directed Donna into the pasture beside the house, and felt the first relief I'd had all day. But, some consternation as well; after all, I had interrupted her calving regimen, something I try to never do. But, I had been remiss in not already pulling her into the 'calving' pasture, and I have no doubt it is the safest place for my new mama cows -- so yes, I interrupted her.

Donna and her newborn Elvis sired bull calf

Another Photo of Donna and her Bull Calf:



Yes, I Talk Too Much!

This account of my day is getting lengthy! I still tend to 'talk too much', but no longer have a teacher around to chastise me to shush -- apparently I didn't have to hold my nose in a circle in a corner of the school room nearly enough! So I'll leave off the rest of the details and tell you the ending. After 6 and a half hours of finding her, watching her, moving her, and then checking on her repeatedly, Donna had a healthy bull calf. Besides my own interruption of her calving ritual, another calf, a 6 week old precocious heifer, provided constant irritating curiosity about just what Donna was doing. Despite all this, a healthy calf was born.

My day is what cow-calf farms or ranches are all about. Raising cows in rural America is not about Global Warming -- has no impact on Global Warming. They are about new life and a calf's first steps, they are about watching a calf dashing about the pasture when they realize they can run -- when they feel just plain good to be alive -- and someone like me is around to feel the joy and look after them and give them as good a life as I am capable - regardless of their ultimate end.



Grassfed Beef - The Preference of Alexander Hyde in the 19th Century

In regard to Grass, Alexander Hyde tells us, “. . . we do not think it has yet generally attained the relative position and attention it deserves among the products of the earth. It is like the air we breathe, so common and so cheap, that we undervalue it. We avoid treading upon the blades of corn, but walk upon the velvety turf without compunction, but the grass “crushed to the earth” rises again, and is found, like truth, to prevail over all its foes.”

What a beautiful quote from the past, what a reverent feeling it invokes for the vast grasslands of America, and how appalled Mr. Hyde would be at the current direction of the United Nations and our Nation in regard to legislating less grass for a cow’s diet and more grain. Mr. Hyde also tells us:

•“We should be sorry to confine our cattle to dry hay alone for the six long months of our winter, but if we can not have both hay and roots, we speak for the hay. It is for the animal what bread is for man, the staff of his life.”

•“Let the cattle graze in pastures luxuriant with white clover, redtop, June and orchard grass, and the beef will be fit to set before an English king or a New York alderman.”

•“We have seen cattle luxuriating in rich pastures, whose flanks and sirloins fairly rolled with fat; and we have no doubt that beef thus made is more healthy than where the animal is confined in a dark stall, condemned to breathe impure air, fed with oil cake, and deprived of all exercise.”

•“It is not because we like corn and roots less that we thus speak, but because we like hay more. . . As there can be no question but that we can raise a hundred pounds of hay at less expense than a bushel of corn or five bushels of carrots, it follows that hay should be the leading crop where crops are raised to be fed out to stock.”

Mr. Hyde sounds like a modern day breeder of grass-fed beef cattle! The term ‘grass-fed’ in regard to beef seems to most a modern term, a new term applied to an old and natural approach to raising cattle. However, Mr. Hyde uses the term himself in the following:

“The quality of the manure depends much on the quality of the food the animal consumes. Grain-fed animals give a much richer manure than grass-fed, and those that ruminate digest their food more thoroughly and extract more nourishment from it than those furnished with only one stomach. A pig may live on the excrement of a horse, but would starve on the excrement of a cow.”

Source:  Agriculture: Twelve Lectures on Agricultural Topics: delivered before the Lowell Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, 1871, Alexander Hyde

A Day in the Life of a Cow-Calf Farmer -- Don't Let the FAO and the EPA Put the Cow in A Feedlot or a Zoo for your Grandchildren to Visit

UPDATE 4/26/10:  Video of Arlene and Elvis' young bull calf at a few weeks old...






Global Warming and Cows -- this has become the focus of so much of my time and energy for several weeks now.  Today, my time was more occupied with my actual real cows, one cow in particular.  She's a cow I nicknamed Donna long ago, in honor of an elementary school classmate who was quite the dominating child -- enough so that I actually remember her taking charge of the classroom when I was in the 3rd grade.  She might have been full of honey do this and that in the first and second grade as well, but I was quite occupied in those years with standing in corners and defending my right to 'talk too much', which my teachers heartily disagreed with. Did you ever have to stand in a corner and keep your nose precisely within a small circle? 

That's pretty much what the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations would have the Cow-Calf farmer in the United States, Canada, Sub-Saharan Africa, China, India, and certainly Central and South America -- that is precisely what the FAO would have us all do -- stand in a corner with our nose in a circle and try not to move, try not to squirm, because to do so might bring down the wrath of our individual governmental authorities directly on us.

It has been interesting to note that when I first began blogging and writing hubpage articles regarding the bogus indictment of livestock in the big Global Warming picture -- that a new visitor to my blog and to my hubs is none other than..........the FAO. What should I think about that? What should YOU think about that? Let your Congressman and Senators know that you heartily OBJECT to the Cap and Trade legislation waiting to come back to the forefront of American legislators and the American media.

If you would like to know just what happened with my day in the life of cow-calf farming, and really my day in the life of Donna, my British White cow, then visit my hub about Donna, it was a very good day in my life as a cow-calf herdswoman.

Socialism - It will Trickle into our Lives - and the Obama Administration's EPA is Helping it Along

The Obama Administration is already gearing up for the next critical component of Barrack's grand plan to redistribute the wealth of America - and that wealth includes the very ground itself upon which crops and cattle are raised.

The health care bill, the so-called stimulus bill, and all the fat salaries of this bloated administration have to be paid for. How? Clearly taxes will be raised, that was surely a given. But, the backdoor attack on the wealth of America is being accomplished through the EPA.

The President is already making moves to legitimize the EPA's regulatory control of greenhouse gases. The EPA's "Endangerment Finding" on GHG emissions opens the door to a vast revenue stream for the use of liberal Democratic salaries and social programs, and will effectively set the stage for the redistribution of American farm lands.

Recognition, or legitimization, of Greenhouse Gases as hazardous to human health is just the first step.  Many, many more recommended "mitigating policies" of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) will follow.  The end result will be the transfer of pasture and farm land in to the hands of the federal government, friendly large industrial players, or into the hands of some individual who qualifies for a loan under some federal "redistribution" program -- that you can't touch.  How?  Through the burden of new taxation that forces the small holder out the door and his children and grandchildren into "alternative livelihoods" and leaves them forever distanced from the roots of the rural lifestyle of their ancestors.

Will Brazilian and Australian Cattlemen Actually 'Believe' BioDiesel By-Products will Improve the Nutritional Quality of their Beef?

Here we go again, another 'authority' claims that methane emissions by grazing animals makes up one-third of this planet's greenhouse gas emissions.  Our own EPA provides us a handy chart that makes the respected Dr. Alex Chaves of the University of Sidney look like a student rather than a member of the faculty.  Per the EPA, CH4, or methane, accounts for 14.3% of Global GHG emissions, and that includes other sources beyond cattle, like Coal production.

Dr. Chaves' answer to solving this exaggerated statement in regard to beef cattle methane emissions is.....drum roll please....feeding Australia and Brazil's livestock more by-products to make their belches and their dung more environmentally friendly.  He really caught me off-guard on that position, really, I would have never thought either Australia or Brazil would buy in to this FAO generated bunk of modifying the grass diet of grazing cattle...  and Dr. Chaves actually has the temerity to claim his bio-diesel byproducts will improve the grazing cows nutrition and the quality of beef and milk?

Figure 1: Global Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2004

Greener grazing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

3 March 2010

Gases such as methane expelled by grazing animals make up roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions.Dr Alex Chaves, Senior Lecturer of Animal Nutrition in the Faculty of Veterinary Science, is working on ways to reduce these livestock emissions, which contribute to global warming.
Working in collaboration with the CNPGL-EMBRAPA (Dairy Research Centre) and the Federal University of São João del-Rei in his native Brazil, Dr Chaves plans to supplement ruminant feed in Brazil and Australia with biodiesel by-products, such as press-oil seeds and glycerol.
"Brazil has a massive biodiesel industry," he explains. "By using biodiesel by-products in animal feeding, we can hopefully improve animal nutrition and performance, and reduce methane emissions per unit of production."
While Brazil has the second-largest number of livestock animals in the world (170 million head), the quality of its grasses is lower (tropical grasses, or "C4") than those in temperate areas (temperate grasses, or "C3"). This means its animals develop at a slower pace, and therefore emit more methane over their lifespan.
Essentially, Dr Chaves' project aims to improve the quality of Brazil's grasses from C4 to C3, to improve the performance and sustainability of the agricultural sector.
"The better the nutrition, the better the efficiency," he explains. "And the better the efficiency, the less animals you need to produce to feed human beings. This means lower emissions."

"We are trying to kill two birds with one stone," he continues. "We are trying to reduce methane emissions while simultaneously improving animal performance as well as the nutritional quality of the meat and milk."

If the project is as successful as Dr Chaves anticipates it will be, it will help producers to maximise livestock productivity, improve the income of thousands of farmers in marginal regions including outback Australia and lower greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating anthropogenic climate change.

Contact: Michelle Wood
Phone: 02 9351 3191
Email: michelle.wood@sydney.edu.au

In March 2009, a Bill was Introduced to Prevent the EPA from assessing a "Cow Tax"

The efforts of South Dakota's Thune to protect the farmer from a "cow tax" on methane emissions from the cow's belch has not resulted in actual passage of a bill specific to prohibiting a "cow tax".  However, a prohibition against such a tax is included in a 2010 appropriations bill.  While the "2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from taxing producers for naturally occurring livestock emissions,"  -- the battle is far from over.  

The current cap and trade legislation includes the "dietary modification" policy recommendation of the United Nations, and the EPA continues to maintain numerous web pages devoted to the methane emissions from the cow's belch.   

This anti "Cow Tax" bill, introduced right at a year ago, is sitting in the Committee on Environment and Public Works, per govtrack.us.  Voice your support of this bill at WashingtonWatch.com.  The minority voice of Vegan Meat Haters would appear to be the vast 'majority' of any concerned US citizens who have taken the time to 'click' their opposition to this bill --take the time to voice your support, the risk to the family farm is quite real.

Thune, Schumer Introduce "Cow Tax" Prevention Bill, Puts Nail In Coffin Of Inane Proposal That Could Cost SD Farmers An Estimated $367 Million And Put Family Farms At Risk Of Going Out Of Business

Financial Impact Would Be Devastating To The Thousands Of Family-Owned Farms in South Dakota

"March 5th, 2009 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators John Thune and Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) today introduced a bill (S.527) that will once and for all prevent the government from imposing an onerous "cow tax" on farmers across the country. Late last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discussed regulating greenhouse gases in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which could include requiring farmers to purchase expensive permits. Although the EPA did not propose moving forward with the permits, Thune and Schumer are taking preventive action to protect America's farmers. The "tax" would cost South Dakota farmers an estimated $367 million -- or $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cow, and $20 per hog -- fees that could put already struggling family farms on the brink of closure.

In a move to alleviate farmers' fears and ensure that such a proposal is never implemented, Thune and Schumer introduced legislation to prevent the EPA or any other governmental agency from imposing this fee on farmers.

"The Clean Air Act was written to curb pollution from smokestack industries, not to regulate livestock production in South Dakota or elsewhere," said Thune. "Livestock producers do not need another burdensome regulation to worry about, and this legislation would ensure that the `cow tax' never becomes a reality.

"Cattle and dairy production is vital to the economy of South Dakota and to our nation, and in these difficult economic times, it would be disastrous to enact policies that would increase food prices for all Americans. This bipartisan effort reflects our commitment to ensure overbearing proposed rules are never put in place."

"Times are hard for families across New York State, and they are particularly hard for our farmers. The idea of a imposing a cow tax on our farmers and adding one more crushing burden is absurd," Schumer said. "This bill will put an end to this inane `cow tax' once and for all."

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts, et al v EPA that the EPA cannot categorically refuse to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, a law that defines EPA's responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation's air quality. On July 30, 2008, in response to this, the EPA began to consider the implications of defining greenhouse gases as an air pollutant by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This is typically a precursor to a proposed rule and the first in several steps in creating a new regulation. As a part of this process, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) responded to the Notice with a comment that defining greenhouse gases as air pollution may require the EPA to issue permits to farmers for their livestock. Currently, permits for other pollutants cost roughly $45 per ton, though that level can change. Title V of the Clean Air Act requires that permits be obtained by most large and small sources of air pollution.

The USDA indicated that if the EPA chose to move forward with regulating farm animals and requiring permits for emitters of methane, farms with more than 25 dairy cows or 50 beef cattle would need to purchase permits for each ton of methane their animals emitted. The American Farm Bureau Federation, assuming a price of approximately $45 per ton, calculated that this would cost $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cow, or $20 per hog. This regulation would cost a medium sized dairy farm with 75 to 125 cows between $13,000 and $22,000 a year. It would cost a medium size cattle farm with 200 to 300 cows between $17,000 and $27,000.

If enacted, these permits would be devastating to farmers and could put family farms at risk of going out of business. Beef and dairy products are part of a highly competitive global market, meaning American farmers cannot significantly raise prices when the cost of doing business in the United States rises. If forced to pay a "cow tax" or other additional fees, farmers could face a competitive disadvantage, which could close farms and lead to more imported food products.

Importation of dairy and beef products carries its own set of risks for consumers. Overseas livestock and dairy farms are often not regulated as stringently as U.S. farms, and cases of tainted agricultural and food products making their way into U.S. markets have proliferated in the last year. Most recently, baby formula in China containing dangerous levels of melamine and a salmonella outbreak resulting from contaminated jalape¤os from Mexico have rocked American consumers and put the U.S. imported food safety apparatus to the test.

South Dakota is in the heart of farm and ranch country and is a leading producer of livestock. South Dakota has 15,700 cattle ranches, 660 dairy operations, and 960 hog operations. With this new livestock fee, South Dakota farmers and ranchers would pay approximately $367 million in new fees each year to continue operating at current levels. The livestock sector break down for South Dakota is as follows:

• There are 3.7 million beef cattle in the state of South Dakota, which would result in $323,750,000 in fees for South Dakota farmers
• There are 1.42 million hogs in the state of South Dakota, which would result in $28,400,000 in fees for South Dakota hog farmers.
• There are 85,000 dairy cows in the state of South Dakota, which would result in $14,875,000 in fees for South Dakota dairy farmers.

To ensure the burden of a cow tax is never placed on South Dakota farmers, Thune introduced a bill that will prevent the government from imposing the fee, by ensuring that Title V of the clean air act will not apply to methane emissions from livestock agriculture."

Climate Change in Texas - Our Texas Cows Got the Message . . .

. . . and the East Texas cattle population has formed an alliance to suppress belching and farting in the interests of  protecting the Ozone -- apparently it worked.

The weather in Texas is notorious for being unpredictable within most any season, and in this upper sliver of southeast Texas, tucked right in the northern edge of Tyler County -- this winter has surely been one to remember.  I'd say the cows have done a pretty good job of holding back on those belches, maybe the constant hole digging in the soil by the bulls isn't 'soil degradation', but is actually a repository for herd belches. 

Yesterday evening the snow and sleet started about 5:30 PM, and it was pretty nasty outside.  But within an hour it was just pretty flakes of snow falling. By 11:00 PM the pastures and the treetrops were covered in a white blanket of snow, and the flakes were still thick and softly falling.  This morning the melt had already begun by the time I took a few pictures, but as we will be in the throes of man and cow caused Global Warming within a few short years, decades . . . who knows what the current time line theory is-- I certainly recorded what may be never ever seen again in these Pineywoods.

Last night's snow fall has been our third snow of the winter, and the same can be said for many other parts of Texas as well.  Yet Texas is the cow home of the largest population of cattle in the United States of America, over 13 million head of cattle.  The atmosphere above the blue skies of the State of Texas must be surely choking on methane emissions from the belches of cows and from their manure. 

Is there a Texas sized hole lurking in the ozone above our great State?  I haven't heard about one.  And the air I breathe in my rural part of Texas is clean and fresh.  The same can not be said about the City of Houston.  If there's ever a time when I remember the fast driving fun of my youth, it's when I'm trying to get the heck out of Houston so I can breathe again and leave my constant Houston Headache behind  -- and get back to my rural country air filled with the cow belches just as fast as I can.

We are told that cattle are a greater contributor to Global Warming than the Transportation sector.  A trip to Houston and back to home always shows what a Farce that notion is.  This third snowfall as well shows what a farce that notion is.  Texas farm and ranch land accounts for some 78% of the total land area in the State of Texas, or about 130 Million acres.  Eighty-three percent of that farm and ranch land is in the hands of small land owners having less than 499 acres, and a lot of cows roam that acreage.

Per the Texas Dept. of Agriculture (2007), "Texas is the number one cattle producing state in the country, with an inventory of 13.8 million cattle and calves -- more than twice as many as the next largest producer."  Shouldn't we Texans have hole in the ozone to worry about? Shouldn't we be in a sweat instead of a shiver?  Or have our cows found a way to circumvent the goals of the EPA, the United Nations, and their great and all powerful leader -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Visit my HubPage for an in-depth examination of the EPA and FAO efforts to exert governmental control over the cows in your pastures at a level you could never have imagined in a rational world.  (Image below is provided by your EPA to assist you in understanding just how to test the methane of your cows - looks like a bad, very bad joke.)

Should we be Worrying about a Carbon Tax Assessment on our Cows?

Raising cattle has lots of costs, both monetary and in terms of your time; but it also has lots of rewards that are perhaps hard to convey to someone who hasn't experienced the sort of peacefulness and rightness that comes from having cattle grazing pastures around your home. 

I have largely tended to scoff and ignore reports that cattle are primary contributors to Global Warming. I felt comfortable with my grassfed approach to raising my entire herd, mama cows and all.  How could that be a bad thing?

Suddenly, there has been a lot of finger pointing at grassfed beef as an even worse culprit to the earth than a stalled and grainfed steer.  So I felt like I could not ignore this, laugh at this, anymore.  I found the FAO's 2006 report that damned my gentle grassfed cows, and I read it with great interest, and I recommend everyone to read this report.

While a grassfed animal does produce more methane via their belching, the grain fed animal produces manure that contains more Nitrous Oxide, almost 300 times, or ~93%, more toxic to the ozone than methane.   Not to mention the Carbon Dioxide emissions that result from the cropping of the feed grains, and the nitrous oxide from the fertilizers used to crop the grain.

The FAO's 2006 report that damned the livestock industry actually provides NO estimation of the net carbon effect of converting to an all grain livestock industry. NONE. And certainly no estimation of the impact on water supplies from cropland fertilizer runoff.

And in regard to grass fed cattle operations, the FAO references the 2002 work of Vaclav Smil who says ". . . Nitrogen loss not being a factor in the production of “totally grass-fed” bovines or bovines raised on “crop and food processing residues that are unpalatable to non-ruminants – such as humans"; and Smil goes on to say that grass fed production of livestock would be environmentally preferable in societies that could manage to implement it.

Apparently the FAO would rather spend their time coming up with some vaccine, or chemical additive for the cow to eat, to reduce their belches.  Follow the blog title link, or click here, for my articles on the findings presented in the FAO report, Livestock's Long Shadow.

Cap and Trade Comes to Califironia! Cutting edge aren't they?

        !Well, here we go, some interesting first steps by California in measuring the methane produced by cattle.  Production of beef cattle, including maintenance of breeding stock, on a grass and legume diet is becoming more clearly every day the safest approach to seedstock and beef production -- as in safer for your pocket book in the years to come.  Cattle on grain produce more nitrous oxide than cattle on grass, surely this fact will eventually be more important than the EPA and FAO's recommended increase in grain feeding.  Unless you have a vast forest to offset perhaps the dastardly global warming impact of your grain supplemented herd, it's time for increased focus on grass production of seedstock, in a logical world. 

         Superior Feed Efficiency of your seedstock herd is going to be vital to your success at grass-based seedstock as well as beef production.  The photos included here are of my mature herd and were taken a few days ago.  They are content and browsing on old dry grass, but mostly on the young native grasses and clovers that responded well to the sunny winter weather we had in East Texas on the heals of very nice rainfall.
         These girls also have round bales of average quality bahia grass hay, but they've dropped their consumption tremendously over the past few weeks.  They also receive a ration of alfalfa hay three times a week that generally equates to about 20 lbs for each female.  Unless you are individually feeding a cow either supplemental alfalfa or grain, it's always going to be strictly an estimate on per head consumption. 

          Purchasing alfalfa hay by the truckload direct from the farmer is generally the best approach for getting quality hay at a fair price.  As well, the per ton cost of alfalfa hay, delivered, easily competes with the average cost of a basic 20% protein bag of grain cubes, which run about $7/Bag, or $280 per ton in my area.  Even buying the grain in bulk only results in at most a 10% cost reduction for a ton of grain feed.  And most aggravating of all, to my mind, you have to practically live in the feed store picking up food, or build a real swank barn that can hold a lot of grain bags and hope the mice or the weather don't find their way in.  (Pictured above is J.West's Nell Opal 07, a Mazarati daughter, and a heavy bred heifer handling herself quite well with the big girls despite growing both herself and her calf on a zero grain diet.  Notice she has a 'poopy' tail from the watery young grass and clover in her February diet.)

California To Measure Methane To Pinpoint Emissions

02/03/2010 10:13AM  (Please follow the blog title link above for the full text of this AP article.)

California plans to install a network of computerized monitors to measure methane emissions from regions that are home to dairy ranches, farms, landfills and other sources.

It will be the first network of its kind in the United States and will help the state take another step toward reducing emissions of the gases related to global warming.

By May, seven devices about the size of a personal computer will be placed in regions of the state where methane emissions are believed to be the highest. Those include the farm fields of the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and landfills in the Los Angeles basin.

"What we'll be able to do is to find the identity, the location and the strength of methane emissions within the state," said Jorn Herner, the scientist managing the program at the California Air Resources Board. "This is new and pioneering work."

The air board spent about $400,000 on the devices and software modeling to analyze the data.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, academic research scientists and other countries have deployed similar monitors in the last two years to track greenhouse gases around the globe.

California's approach, scientists say, is the most extensive effort to gauge local emissions. The information gleaned from the monitoring system is expected to inform state regulators who are charged with implementing the state's landmark global warming law, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed in 2006. . .

. . .California's global warming law, known as AB32, requires the state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by about 25 percent over the next 10 years. Methane, which is 21 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, is the most prevalent greenhouse gas behind carbon dioxide.

State regulators currently rely on power plants, oil refineries and others to report their own emissions. That information is used to compile California's greenhouse gas registries and will determine which polluters must buy emission permits under a state cap-and-trade system now being crafted.

Under such a system, companies that cannot cut their emissions because of cost or technical hurdles can buy pollution credits from companies that have achieved cleaner emissions. . . .
. . .Providing a more accurate accounting of emissions should build confidence in carbon-trading markets, said Michael Woelk, Picarro's chief executive.

". . . These devices will tell real time, minute to minute, what your emissions are," Woelk said. "The free market has to know whether this stuff is working in real time, or the credibility is pulled out from under it."

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.