Just Grounds Community
For Like minded people who like to see-
The Problem with Livestock Breeder Representation in Australia
A recent push by Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) for extra funding, due to declining State Farm Organisation (SFO), membership has prompted this blog.
Since 1997 we have had the current Government monopoly in Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and CCA etc.
Livestock producers have funded increased levies (what some refer to as compulsory unionism) , however their returns have remained almost stagnant since the 1980's.
The trickle down effect to producers, when meat prices increase are reaped by those in the supply chain above the producer.
As a result livestock producers are rightly concerned that a grab for some of the money by Cattle Council is an expectation that we should be forced to help them now that times are tougher, and farmers have lost the confidence of SFO's and CCA in looking after their "interests"
The problem for most livestock producers is they no longer see SFO/CCA as supporting them. Some SFO's have been accused of getting into bed with government to the detriment of farmers e.g. agreeing the natural resource management legislation, accepting funds in relation to leasehold property etc. It would appear that SFO's will continue to decline because they aren't seen as farmer orientated.
The problem with CCA is that they are not a grass roots livestock producer organisation and get involved in meat marketing, trace back, NLIS etc and as a result many livestock breeders are not interested in financially "propping them up"
This results from what CCA are seen to be actually involved in, and where all the costs associated with their activities end up, that is back on the livestock breedere.g.NLIS, LPA and increased transaction levies.
Comments by Cattle Council members indicate that they are confused about whom they represent and what they should be doing, examples from the dialogue on farmonline blogs include:-
a) " I would suggest that stakeholders would include the State Farming Organisations who have funded been the "owners" of CCA since its inception."
NB Not Livestock breeders, CCA's starting fund and reserve are from historical cattle levies.
b) " who then goes into bat for the Australian industry when there is an Ecoli outbreak in Nth America, when steel shot appears in beef products in Asia, when Russians want to renegotiate the price of beef?"
Logically cattle means living beast, but they see their role as looking after what are really meat processing problems. Where was CCA when the indonesian market was closed by our Governemnt? ( I know the answer )
What is also unusual in CCA discussion paper is the following statement:"
"It is important to provide an “opt out” option as producers must not be forced to pay for national representation (compulsory unionism). Producers must also take on the responsibility of actually joining the national representative organisation as a ‘member’ before they can vote or stand for direct election."
Two points come to mind:-
1) MLA transaction levies etc in effect is already compulsory unionism, but worse because levy payers have to register to vote.
2) Producers must join the proposed organisation even though the current system cannot recognise who paid levies, and how much they paid. That means the system is still open to the current rorts where individuals/companies just claim their right whether it is correct or a blatant lie.
Logically livestock breeders would voluntarily join an organisation that was seen to support their interests. The decline of SFO's is just the chickens coming home to roost.
My questions to you are:-1) Do livestock producers want a representative organisation that is not a government department and represents their interests instead of the current system where transaction levy benefits flow to processors and supermarkets, instead of livestock producers whom paid the levy in the first place?
2) Is the current structure a dinosaur needing drastic evolution?
3) Who actually represents the livestock breeder now?
THE ACT-
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES ACT 1999 - SCHEDULE 3
Cattle transactions
1 Definitions
In this Schedule:
"bobby calf" means a bovine animal (other than a buffalo or a head of lot-fed cattle):
(a) which has been slaughtered and the dressed weight of whose carcase did not or does not exceed 40 kg; or
(b) which has not been slaughtered but which, at the time of the leviable transaction or other dealing, had or has a liveweight that did not or does not exceed 80 kg; or
(c) which has not been slaughtered or had its liveweight determined at the time of the leviable transaction or other dealing but which, in the opinion of the intermediary, would, if slaughtered at that time, have constituted or constitute a carcase whose dressed weight would not have exceeded or would not exceed 40 kg.
"cattle" means bovine animals other than buffalo.
"dairy cattle" means cattle that are, or, unless exported from Australia, would be likely to be, held on licensed dairy premises for a purpose related to commercial milk production, including, but without limiting the generality of the above, bulls, calves and replacement heifers.
"industry marketing body" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 .
"industry research body" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 .
"leviable bobby calf" means a bobby calf to which subclause 6(4) does not apply.
"licensed dairy farmer" means the person having day to day control of licensed dairy premises.
"licensed dairy premises" means premises that, under a law of the State or Territory in which the premises are situated, are authorised for use as a dairy farm.
"lot-fed cattle" means cattle that are, or are likely to be, used in the production of grain-fed beef.
2 Intermediary
A reference in this Schedule to the intermediary is a reference to the person required, under the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 , to pay to the Commonwealth, on behalf of the producer, an amount equal to the amount of levy imposed by this Schedule.
3 Determining the weight of a carcase
For the purposes of this Schedule, in determining the weight of a carcase immediately after it has been dressed, no adjustment of that weight is to be made on account of shrinkage.
4 Related companies
For the purposes of this Schedule, the question whether companies were or are related to each other is to be determined in the same manner as the question whether 2 corporations are related to each other is determined under the Corporations Act 2001 .
5 Imposition of levy
(1) Levy is imposed on:
(a) each transaction entered into after the commencement of this Schedule by which the ownership of cattle is transferred from one person to another; or
(b) the delivery, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle to a processor otherwise than because of a sale to the processor; or
(c) the slaughter by a processor, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle purchased by the processor and held for a period of more than 60 days after the day of the purchase and before the day of the slaughter; or
(d) the slaughter by a processor, after the commencement of this Schedule, of cattle in respect of which levy imposed by this Schedule would not be payable under paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(2) Levy is not imposed by this Schedule:
(a) on the sale of dairy cattle for dairying purposes; or
(b) on the sale of cattle at auction to the vendor; or
(c) on the sale or delivery of cattle between related companies, unless the company buying or taking delivery was or is a processor; or
(d) on the delivery of cattle to a processor for slaughter on behalf of the person delivering the cattle if:
(i) the delivery occurs within 14 days after the cattle were or are acquired by that person; and
(ii) the cattle are afterwards slaughtered; and
(iii) the person continues to own the cattle immediately after their hot carcase weight, within the meaning of Schedule 1, is determined or is taken, for the purposes of that Schedule, to have been determined, as the case requires; or
(e) on the sale or delivery of cattle to a processor, if the cattle are not, at the time of the sale or delivery, fit for human consumption, under any applicable law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; or
(f) in circumstances where the ownership of the cattle changed or changes:
(i) as a result of a sale or transfer ordered by a court in proceedings under the Family Law Act 1975 ; or
(ii) by devolution on the death of the owner of the cattle; or
(iii) on the happening of events referred to in subsection 70-100(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ; or
(g) on a leviable bobby calf on which levy imposed by this Schedule, or by the repealed Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 , has already been paid; or
(h) in such other circumstances (if any) as are prescribed.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), dairy cattle are taken to be sold for dairying purposes if:
(a) both the vendor and the purchaser are licensed dairy farmers; or
(b) either the vendor or the purchaser is a licensed dairy farmer and the cattle are being acquired for inclusion in, or eventual inclusion in, a herd of dairy cattle.
(4) If cattle are delivered to a processor, otherwise than because of a sale to the processor, for fattening or agistment for a period before slaughter by the processor, the cattle:
(a) are taken not to have been delivered to the processor for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) unless they are slaughtered at the end of that period; and
(b) if they are slaughtered at the end of that period, are taken to have been delivered to the processor immediately before their slaughter.
6 Rate of levy
(1) The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of cattle (other than a head of lot-fed cattle or a leviable bobby calf) is the sum of the following amounts:
(a) $2.16 or, if another amount (not exceeding $6.50) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(b) 72 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $2.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(c) 17 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $4.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(d) 13 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 50 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount.
Note 1: Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.
Note 2: Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.
Note 3: Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.
Note 4: Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.
(2) The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of cattle that is a leviable bobby calf is the sum of the following amounts:
(a) 48 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $1.90) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(b) 16 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 40 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(c) the prescribed amount (not exceeding 20 cents), if any;
(d) the prescribed amount (not exceeding 50 cents), if any.
Note 1: Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.
Note 2: Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.
Note 3: Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.
Note 4: Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.
(3) The rate of levy imposed by this Schedule on each head of lot-fed cattle is the sum of the following amounts:
(a) $2.16 or, if another amount (not exceeding $6.50) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(b) 72 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $2.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(c) 17 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding $4.00) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount;
(d) 13 cents or, if another amount (not exceeding 50 cents) is prescribed by the regulations, the other amount.
Note 1: Paragraph (a) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry marketing body.
Note 2: Paragraph (b) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 , are destined for the industry research body.
Note 3: Paragraph (c) identifies amounts that, under the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account Act 1991 , are destined for the National Cattle Disease Eradication Account.
Note 4: Paragraph (d) identifies amounts that, under the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Ac... , are destined for the Australian Animal Health Council.
(4) For the purposes of subclause (1), a cow with a calf at foot are together taken to constitute a single head of cattle.
7 Who pays the levy
(1) Levy imposed by this Schedule on a transaction by paragraph 5(1)(a) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle immediately before the transaction was entered into.
(2) Levy imposed by this Schedule on a delivery of cattle by paragraph 5(1)(b) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle immediately before the delivery.
(3) Levy imposed by this Schedule on the slaughter of cattle by paragraph 5(1)(c) or 5(1)(d) of this Schedule is payable by the person who owned the cattle at the time of the slaughter.
8 Regulations
(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare a body to be the body whose recommendations about the amount to be prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a), 6(1)(b), 6(1)(d), 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b), 6(2)(d), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) or 6(3)(d) of this Schedule are to be taken into consideration under subclause (2).
(2) If a declaration is in force under subclause (1), then, before the Governor-General makes regulations for the purposes of the paragraph to which the declaration relates, the Minister must take into consideration any relevant recommendation made to the Minister by the body specified in the declaration in relation to that paragraph.
9 Transitional--regulations
(1) This clause applies to regulations if:
(a) the regulations were made for the purposes of a particular provision of the Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 ; and
(b) the regulations were in force immediately before the commencement of this clause.
(2) The regulations have effect, after the commencement of this clause, as if they had been made for the purposes of the corresponding provision of this Schedule.
10 Transitional--declarations
(1) This clause applies to a declaration if:
(a) the declaration was made for the purposes of a particular provision of the Cattle Transactions Levy Act 1997 ; and
(b) the declaration was in force immediately before the commencement of this clause.
(2) The declaration has effect, after the commencement of this clause, as if it had been made for the purposes of the corresponding provision of this Schedule
Views: 2769
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on
-
FROM SOS NEWS
Tim Flannery's B******* Gets Funding To Halt Farting Cows
Please visit this site to read for yourself the new phase of "Flannery Fart Funding" again selling fiction for you taxpayer dollars - www.target100.com.au
Tim Flannery failed Nostradamus of taxpayer funded Australia climate change, engineer to government on carbon tax, now has a home for his proven b*******. Again taxpayer funded he is engineering control for farting cattle polluting the atmosphere, yes on your money.
GENETICALLY modifying cows so they burp and fart less - that's one of 40 initiatives to reduce emissions being considered by the cattle and sheep industry.
Researchers are investigating the merits of selective breeding to alter the genetic makeup of certain breeds of cows and sheep.
The new breeds would produce less methane in a bid to reduce the impact of farming on the environment.
The research is part of 100 initiatives, dubbed Target100, aimed at delivering sustainable cattle and sheep farming by 2020.
Environmentalist Tim Flannery, who has signed on as the face of the initiative, says sustainability is vital for the long-term survival of the farming industry."Our impact on the environment can be very severe in the agricultural and grazing sectors," he said before the launch of Target100.
"We know historically some of the disasters that have happened, species lost, soil degradation and water degradation and so on."
But limiting the flatulent expulsion of methane gases not only has a positive impact on the environment, but also increases productivity of the animals."Methane is a waste," Mr Flannery said.
"The energy that the cows produce in methane, could have got into producing meat."
Some individual cows in a herd would produce less methane than others, meaning producers could breed from those and produce a less methane-rich herd.
"It's just like you would do if you had some cows that produced more meat and less bone. Farmers have been doing that for years," he said.
"All they're doing is turning their attention to methane."
Almost half of the 100 initiatives to improve sustainability in farming deal with gas emissions, and include investigating the development of microbes that will help suppress methane production, finding bacteria to metabolise methane and better managing manure.
Another platform of the project is giving consumers an opportunity to learn more about how their beef and lamb is produced.
"Australian cattle and sheep farmers are caretakers of nearly half Australia's landmass and their profitability depends upon the health of the land," chef Justin North said.
"They are natural environmentalists who want to leave the land in better condition for future generations."
People can go to www.target100.com.au to ask questions, receive regular updates, voice their opinions and get simple tips on being more sustainable at home.
Story source - www.news.com.au
MLA has got to be wound up -and quickly!
Queensland Election
-
Permalink Reply by John Michelmore on -
While these people have achieved concensus on the carbon tax, do they think this makes a difference when 60% of the population believe its rubbish, and maybe evn more farmers than 60% believe it is not valid.
How many of you out there believe humans can control the climate?
-
Permalink Reply by John Michelmore on
-
There are a number of valid comments here,
1) Genetic manipulation of cattle and sheep genes to produce less methane needs geneticists not palaeontologists.
2) The refernce to farmers as caretakers of Australian land is of real concern; are they confirming, as we suspect, that Australia is already socialist and we actually own nothing. Hope the banks are reading this!!
3) Assumming you can use bacteria to innoculate cattle and sheep to produce less methane, how is to be applied? Maybe reinnoculation (drenching) of every head once every month?
-
Permalink Reply by John Michelmore on
-
Oh sorry, I am confused, the governemnt will compensate us so that we can recoup the costs of bacterial innoculation of livestock to minimise methane emmissions. This will be in line the the compensation, and increased livestock prices, you received for your efforts to NLIS tag your livestock.
My apologies for jumping the gun!!
-
-
Have just sent all my info to Robin McConchie- hoping to get a run on the country hour soon.
-
-
It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate changeAndrew BoltFebruary 12, 2011 12:00AMTim Flannery has had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking human-made climate change will destroy Earth, says Andrew Bolt.TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to scare us stupid, and I can't think of a better man for the job.This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate Commission.His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.He's had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing Flannery's predictions, we're now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.And we're also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record. Ready?In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney 's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".Check Sydney 's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."Check Adelaide 's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane 's dam levels: 100 per cent full.All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound.So let's check on them, too.In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ..."In Adelaide , Sydney and Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."One premier, Queensland 's Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money on a desalination plant, saying "it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate".But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned.(Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery's big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.)Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam."There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said."The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin , the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk.The technology Flannery said was "relatively straighforward" wasn't.One of Geodynamics' five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn't predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further "delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region".The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it's no surprise the company's share price has almost halved in four months.Never mind, here comes Flannery with his latest scares and you-beaut fix.His job as Climate Commission chief, says Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, is to "provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community" and "build the consensus about reducing Australia 's carbon pollution".That, translated, means selling us whatever scheme the Government cooks up to tax carbon dioxide, doing to the economy what the floods have done to Flannery's hot-rocks investment.See why I say Flannery is the right man for this job? Who better to teach us how little we really know about global warming and how much it may cost to panic?
-
-
See Here-
The Prices represent US$ per CWT (hundred-weight); 1 CWT = 100pounds.so;a 650 pound steer x $175 per cwt = 650 x $1.75 = $1137.50in KG terms = 650 pounds = 295 kg; so $1137.50 divide by 295kg = $3.85 per kg LIVE; Thats almost double what we are getting here anywhere in Australia.Who says we are not getting ripped off!!!!Don't here anything about this fromCCA, MLA WWf , Agfarce cattle- all we here from them is why we should divert our levy money to them and their crazy schemes!
-
-
Hardly think that we need to kowtow and grovel to McDonald's version of anything- see below to show that it is cheap -disease free and plentiful- all that counts on any given day!
-
-
See -SOS News
Flannery B******* now moves to Cattle Farting Control
Tim Flannery failed Nostradamus of taxpayer funded Australia climate change, engineer to government on carbon tax, now has a home for his proven b*******. Again taxpayer funded he is engineering control for farting cattle polluting the atmosphere, yes on your money ...Category: GeneralPosted by: adminGENETICALLY modifying cows so they burp and fart less - that's one of 40 initiatives to reduce emissions being considered by the cattle and sheep industry.
Researchers are investigating the merits of selective breeding to alter the genetic makeup of certain breeds of cows and sheep.
The new breeds would produce less methane in a bid to reduce the impact of farming on the environment.
The research is part of 100 initiatives, dubbed Target100, aimed at delivering sustainable cattle and sheep farming by 2020.
Environmentalist Tim Flannery, who has signed on as the face of the initiative, says sustainability is vital for the long-term survival of the farming industry."Our impact on the environment can be very severe in the agricultural and grazing sectors," he said before the launch of Target100.
"We know historically some of the disasters that have happened, species lost, soil degradation and water degradation and so on."
But limiting the flatulent expulsion of methane gases not only has a positive impact on the environment, but also increases productivity of the animals."Methane is a waste," Mr Flannery said.
"The energy that the cows produce in methane, could have got into producing meat."
Some individual cows in a herd would produce less methane than others, meaning producers could breed from those and produce a less methane-rich herd.
"It's just like you would do if you had some cows that produced more meat and less bone. Farmers have been doing that for years," he said.
"All they're doing is turning their attention to methane."
Almost half of the 100 initiatives to improve sustainability in farming deal with gas emissions, and include investigating the development of microbes that will help suppress methane production, finding bacteria to metabolise methane and better managing manure.
-
-
Why don't we breed an animal with four hind quarters while we are about it- get a lot more meat wouldn't we Tim!
-
-
Got a reply from Ludwig yesterday- classic grade three level fluff and bubble that would make "Sir Humphrey Appleby" blush! Basically passing the buck downwards while we can prove beyond doubt that MLA is not subject to the Corporations act and is the sole responsibility og the Agricultural MINISTER!
Much more to come on this front. Meanwhile MLA-CCA have openned up a comments site and I just posted this re marketing.
Comment 2 19 Apr 2012, 12:35 PM Edit (8m 03s)
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on -
We must presume that Dr Tim Flannery does not count his own flatulence as a source of methane.
But:
* "Each time you pass gas, the expulsion is roughly 9% carbon dioxide and 7% methane. Each of those gasses is said to contribute to global warming, so in theory 15 times per day everyone is contributing to melting the polar ice caps and ending the world as we know it. Al Gore has not yet chimed in on this."
He should also take into account that the 'average' human passes wind - with diet being a factor (peas, beans. lentils) and genetic disposition. So if he wants the population to reduce meat consumption and get their protein from alternative sources such as beans and lentils, that may exacerbate the perceived CO2 and methane "problem".
-
The answers (TIC) to this "problem", may require genetically modifying the human race, to produce no CO2 or methane due to bacteria in the gut, and also to be able to get all the nourishment require from lettuce leaves and celery sticks - (as long as there is not too much water usage).
But everything that breaths are returns ~ 4000ppmv. - foiled again.
So Flannery can just shut up.
-
Methane has been a fallback scare for a while, as the CO2 situation is waning as people see how absurd it is.
Now there is methane from livestock, but the warmistas forget about the original millions of American bison and their European low land equivalents who are also ruminants. Not forgetting David Attenborough's millions of wildebeest and other antelopes which are also ruminants.
Also the scares about methane hydrates being released from Arctic tundra as the ice melts.
Funny though, this didn't worry the descendents of the Vikings in Greenland, who were able to bury their dead during the Medieval Warm Period, when the tundra was capable of being dug by hand, and where at present, it is difficult to dig the same ground for archeological reasons.
Then there is places in Pennsylvania, US , that has been known to expel methane before any recorded history.
Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect
Forum
ODDS AND ENDS AND OTHER THINGS 846 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 59 minutes ago.
EDUCATION 448 Replies
Started by james darby in Politics. Last reply by james darby 2 hours ago.
LEADERSHIP FOLLOWING THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION 173 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 3 hours ago.
UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21 14 Replies
Started by greg rauchle in Activism. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 3 hours ago.
TASMANIA AT THE CROSSROADS? 227 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 9 hours ago.
Islamia Anyone? 528 Replies
Started by Bob Stewart in Activism. Last reply by Stephen Cox 9 hours ago.
UNIONS = Relevance or Tactical Manipulation ?? 10 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Stephen Cox 9 hours ago.
IS AUSTRALIA ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INVASION ? 1240 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Stephen Cox 10 hours ago.
Local Government and Agenda 21 is this the reason for the upcoming slated referendum at the Election in 2014 215 Replies
Started by Stephen Cox in Activism. Last reply by Stephen Cox 10 hours ago.
Playground, Juke Box and Notepad 927 Replies
Started by Geoff Hutchesson in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 23 hours ago.
MENTORING IN THE WORKPLACE AND BEYOND 99 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Education. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 23 hours ago.
HOMELESSNESS: THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS 54 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 23 hours ago.
GREENPEACE USE SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MEANS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY: NOW I AM OUTRAGED! 931 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright yesterday.
Chendasaw Peoples Proclomation 16 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.
THE PEOPLE v THE BANKS: Conviction beats Eviction
Started by Nicholas N Chin in Activism yesterday.
PM and the ALP = Past - Current - Future = 2013 337 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson yesterday.
MIGRANTS, ASYLUM-SEEKERS, AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS (cont.) 1861 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright yesterday.
THE BIKIE GANG THREAT TO THE AUSTRALIAN WAY OF LIFE 87 Replies
Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Law & Legal. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright yesterday.
BUDGET 2013 11 Replies
Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Barbara lee on Saturday.
Katter's Australian Party - is there merit? 543 Replies
Started by Yodie Batzke in Politics. Last reply by Barbara lee on Friday.
Blog Posts
Restore Australia petition
Posted by kate wade on April 12, 2013 at 9:12pm — 4 Comments
PEOPLES SOVEREIGNTY VS PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY
Posted by alex and sonja kraskov on March 25, 2013 at 4:30pm — 50 Comments
THE SHEEPLE OF HUMANITY
Posted by Colin Uebergang on March 2, 2013 at 4:36am — 1 Comment
AUSTRALIA MAD-COW COUNTRIES CAN SELL US THEIR BEEF NOW
Posted by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. on February 14, 2013 at 4:10am — 5 Comments
Knowledge of this fact may save you having an accident
Posted by Geoff Hutchesson on February 8, 2013 at 9:11am — 6 Comments
© 2013 Created by Rob Moore.
Powered by
My views will no doubt be seen as a bit negative- not the usual fluff and bubble associated with "Industry"
We have been livestock owners for 30+ years and I feel as qualified on the things that count- survival against the elements and man made stupidity, profitability, quality,etc........as any other self professed mouthpiece.
To me it is very simple- we produce ANIMALS
-Processors OWN meat and selling it is solely THIER responsibility.
-My responsibility ends at the "knocking box" We are good at what we do as are the processors and the latter should have no say , votes or control within the MLA structure after all they call it the "Producer Company"
When it comes to selling red meat- all the consumer wants is the best possible tasting purchase at a price that they can afford.
They don't even want to think that it comes from a cute live cuddly animal- least of all know anything about where it comes from or the family that raised it. This is all feelgood crap pushed by greenies and vegitarians