Thanks for the article!  Despite a conspicuous lack of funding from the government and industry-controlled land-grant universities, there are still studies showing the environmental benefits of sustainable agriculture, both with crops and livestock management. The Rodale Institute -- http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/ --  has been working to develop realistic solutions for sustainable agriculture for decades, and has a whole section on global warming.  In turn, the Union of Concerned Scientists -- http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/ -- has a section devoted to food issues.  

Looking specifically at the impact of sustainable livestock management, Jo Robinson's eatwild.com  website has a long collection of scientific studies showing the environmental benefits, from reducing greenhouse gases to preventing topsoil erosion. Here's just one quote:

Grassland may absorb more CO2 than trees

It's a well known fact that trees draw carbon dioxide from the air and store it as carbon, thereby slowing the rate of global warming. But a new study from Duke University reveals that restoring native grasslands might be a better solution than planting trees in wetter areas of the country.

"Grasses are deceptively productive," says lead investigator Robert Jackson. "You don't see where all the carbon goes, so there is a misconception that woody species [such as trees and shrubs] store more carbon. That's just not the case." Grasses store vast amounts of carbon in their underground root mass.

Raising cattle on grass is one way to make it financially feasible to expand our native grasslands. Although cows generate their own greenhouse gasses, the net effect of raising ruminants on pasture is to slow global warming.

For a more detailed summary of this research, go to: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-08-07.asp

by Judith McGeary (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Jul 21, 2008 at 6:34:06 AM

  (0+)

I mean Home on the Range as a little girl in the 30s in Wyoming. Cattle as the main cash crop had many factors to consider, weather and government being two important ones. I know manure, in the pasture and a little in the barnyard where we kept cows between night and morning milkings. What we had to do in the barnyard was haul it to the fields to increase corn yield. A small amount was composted with the butt of an old strawpile to use on the garden.

Okay, this is 80 years ago I'm talking about. But all that has changed are the tools. Manure spreaders for pitchforks, rototillers for spades in the garden. The knowledge is the same. As a retired East Tennessee gardener I composted tree leafs, vegetable peelings, and always coffee grounds which speed the process and resist insects.

All peoples know this. What they also have in common is the reality that government constructs their livelihood. FDR's original thrust on improving the economy came about to improve agriculture. It was useful. Agricultural agents came to see that proper methods were used against foot and mouth disease, anthrax, and bloat from wet alfalfa. When the crop reduction program was put in place, better tilling methods and strip farming brought up the yield per acre. With increased fertility of the soil, it was possible to maintain fallowing of some of it.

How the farm bill has morphed! Now agribusiness has the advantage and Deere and Monsanto thrive. Produce is worse and crop prices are so variable in a global environment that only the huge enterprises can survive.

What's a small farmer to do? He is inclined to do what he has always done. Cooperate. Cooperate, not only with his neighbors in common tasks, but also in buying supplies and selling products. We have always had cooperative seed and feed stores. And by the 1950's the REA finally got to Northeastern Wyoming. But one thing has been denied farmers, and that is a say in pricing their product. In Minnesota, taking the interstate west of the Twin Cities, one can drive for miles and see large fields of corn and beans with a Green Giant sign at the fence, meaning those crops are on consignment. Farmers are reduced to "curbing" their risks against weather and vermin. They are thus stuck with selling their crop at a fixed price before it is planted in order to get credit for fertilizer and fuel.

When my husband and I retired in 1977, we met headon the Carter/Reagan inflation crisis. We survived by buying a house with a double lot so I could take up gardening all over again. We were saved in the 1980s. Sadly, age made me sell the house to the church behind me. It hurts to see that wonderful piece of ground used for nothing but ballgames on Sundays when the church has its homecomings.

by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2909 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 1849 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM

  (0+)

It is certainly true that policy should be based on science. The first thing to get right is that global warming is dead. Temperature has been declining this decase and shaply the last two years. Temperature is now the same as in 1979.

Sea level has stopped rising. Total ice is back to normal. There is no discernible correlation between CO2 level and temperature. There is a clear correlation between sunspot cycle length and temperature.  There are no sunspots at present and the cycle is getting very long. It appears we are in for substantial cooling.

by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM

  (0+)

Whether you agree with the arguments about global warming or not, there are other factors that make sustainable agriculture important.  Want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil?  Conventional agriculture is heavily dependent on petroleum, from the natural gas used to make most of the fertilizers and synthetic herbicides/pesticides, to the inefficient transport that means an average piece of food travels 1,500 miles from farm to table.  The water and air pollution caused by CAFOs directly affects people's health (see the Rodale Institute and UCS websites above).  And the whole conventional systam is propped up by government subsidies that allow huge multinational corporations to buy corn, soy, and other commodities for less than it costs to grow them.

The focus of the article was global warming because that's what Gore was talking about.  But the conventional agriculture system is harmful to both our environment and our economy on a wide range of issues everyone has an interest in.

by Judith McGeary (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM

  (0+)

Demand the government stop spraying chemtrails. Demand an end to HAARP which is used to cause unnatural disasters including earthquakes and strong hurricanes.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:27:24 PM

  (0+)

       Hmmm, anytime someone claims the proof is underground where you can't see it I become very skeptical.

      Trees vastly sequester more carbon than  any other type of plant.   The storage is not invisible, it's visible in the trunks.    The greatest biomass per acre is in forests.  They have vertical arrays like solar panels that catch sunlight from many different angles, as does grass, but measured by shade on the ground they cover more than grass.

by io (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:44:11 AM

  (0+)