Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on November 5, 2012 at 9:09pm

http://womenonwater.wordpress.com/tag/imogen-zethoven/

Very telling interview with Imogen Zeithoven this woman is basically a hardarse who has a long term goal they will continue to work towards regardless of any Australian input.

Seems like Animals Australia the Pew Enviromental Foundation are too big for their boots and compromise is not really in their dictionary,Therefore in both cases exposure and public destruction of these groups as any sort of influential organisation along with the driving members behind these dictates losing any credibility is the only realistic way forward.

They have in effect declared war on sections of the Australian public and the challenge must be met in equal vigor and effect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff Hutchesson on November 9, 2012 at 1:21pm

To show that the meat and livestock industries are not alone in their fight with the ENGO's -

This link to the Liberal Party site, latest news (a month old, but I'm slow)

Liberals, ENGO's and fishing certification.

Cheers,

Geoff H.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on November 9, 2012 at 1:48pm

Thanks Geoff

Happy to see Senator Colbeck on side.

Senator Boswell made reference to those conflicting remarks in one of his speeches.

The WA fishery has been allocated $14.5m by the present state government to head towards MSC certification.

There is no end to their money tree.

Many of these certification schemes are billed as independent not for profit but are the brainchild of WWF.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on November 9, 2012 at 3:14pm

Puke-

End-to-end sustainable production

You are here: Home / 

About the red meat industry / About MLA / News and media / Industry news / End-to-end sustainable production

---

More industry news

A new national research program will look to reduce the methane coming out of livestock while increasing the productivity of herds and flocks.

MLA is investing $5.49 million in the National Livetock Methane Program (NLMP), aiming to develop on-farm strategies to reduce methane from cattle and sheep while improving production and manure management.

MLA Climate Change Manager Tom Davison said the comprehensive program recognises there is no single solution to managing greenhouse gas emissions from Australian livestock systems.

“This new research program will further refine measurement technologies, identify nutritional strategies, aid beef genetic selection for low methane traits, and develop a greater understanding of microbial processes that lead to the production of methane in the rumen.”

In recognition of emerging challenges for the livestock industry through carbon policies, the National Livestock Methane Program will also model mitigation strategies to achieve abatement outcomes for the industry in response to the Carbon Farming Initiative.

Backed by the Australian Government, the three-year NLMP draws on a total pool of $32.6 million contributed by 12 industry and research partners including CSIRO, the University of WA and Ridley Agriproducts.

Research will focus on:

• Measuring rumen methane in different feeding systems, developing intra-rumenal measurement devices and delivering a recognised means of quantifying emissions from cattle and sheep
• Evaluating the greenhouse gas abatement potential of leucaena in comparison with native pastures and predicting reductions in emissions from pastures under different grazing practices
• Delivering genetic technologies to breed cattle that naturally produce less methane
• Assess performance of feed additives as methane mitigants in intensely fed ruminants
• Develop the science underpinning nitrate supplementation and rumen defaunation (elimination of rumen protozoa) of livestock to ensure safe methane mitigation technologies
• Quantify mitigation potential of feeds and feeding strategies to reduce emissions while improving production efficiency
• Demonstrate potential of grape marc (by-product of winemaking) to reduce methane emissions when used as a feed supplement
• Determine if nitrate salts can safely replace urea in supplement blocks to reduce the methane emissions of cattle consuming forages in northern Australia
• Develop algae-based food supplements for reducing methane emissions from feedlot cattle. 
• Build knowledge of rumen microbial populations to improve the ‘carbon capture’ potential of livestock
• Develop understanding of how the microbes responsible for livestock methane production function, to identify critical control points that should be targeted
• Manure emissions are a significant source of GHG in intensive livestock systems. MLA, Australian Pork Limited, Dairy Australia, RIRDC Chicken Meat Program and the Australian Egg Corporation Limited have formed a Manure Management Consortium to oversee research

 

F..k me- don't these zombies realise the reality of running livestock???!!!!!

All that s*** above is totally off the survival radar- how about doing the basic functions like shearing and branding and keeping the bastards alive , weaning, fixing machinery, standing up 40 kilometers of flood flatten fences- with just ma and pa Kettle in their mid 50's and no one to help - even if they could afford someone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on November 10, 2012 at 9:13am

It'll keep a whole road train load of researchers happy Rob.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on November 11, 2012 at 9:47pm

info@unitedstockowners.com.au

United Stock Owners

Cattle Council of Australia – Time to Be Stood Aside as a Representative Peak Council

In a clutching at straws and stick the ping-pong ball down the clowns throat and hoping the right number comes up type of interview with the online journal Beef Central – “Cattle Council in levy service talks with MLA”  - the President of Cattle Council of Australia (CCA), Mr Ogilvie, makes the startling claim that:

“Rumours have been circulating in recent weeks that the peak grassfed producer body is on the financial ropes due to a dwindling revenue base and the cost of funding its recent industry-wide restructure consultation process.”

So where did these so-called “Rumours” originate from ?

As it turns out, from CCA themselves. On January 16 2012 CCA announced with great fanfare that it had released a paper to the media titled – “NATIONAL REPRESENTATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN GRASSFED BEEF INDUSTRY”.  CCA even provided a website address for which interested parties could get a copy of the paper at: http://www.cattlecouncil.com.au/nationalrepresentation - Note: access to this web address is no longer available with a message stating: “Access denied – You are not authorized to access this page.” 

Despite CCA, a copy of the paper can be found HERE.

Nevertheless, the executive summary of CCA’s “National Representation of the Australian Grassfed Beef Industry” of January 2012 states:

“The Cattle Council of Australia Inc. was formed in 1979; this was a pivotal year for Australian agriculture. In July 1979, the commodity council members of the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) elected their nominees to sit alongside existing State Farmer Organisation (SFO) councillors to form a complete NFF. It is important to recognise that SFOs were the foundation of this structure by providing funding, producer representation and policy direction. This fascinating history of farmer representation was superbly represented in the 1979 book by Tom Connors, ‘To speak with one voice: The quest by Australian farmers for federal unity’. 

In more recent years, Cattle Council has found itself under increased funding pressure. SFOs have been suffering perennial drops in membership numbers and hence genuine subscription income pressure was felt by those organisations who have traditionally formed the pillars of Cattle Council. Juxtaposed to reductions in Cattle Council’s membership subscription income was the rapidly increasing expectation from the beef production sector that Cattle Council must deliver a more comprehensive service to all of Australia’s grassfed levy payers. The rapid, global uptake of electronic communications has merely served to cement the expectation that Cattle Council must speak with all grassfed levy payers.” 

A quick back of the envelope calculation of CCA’s funding stream and how this has changed since 1979 – 1997, and pretty much all CCA’s funding since 1997, would reveal this:

• $500,000.00 – (35.71%) – Fulfil Government duty and function under the AMLI Act (1997) – payment via the Government Net Industry Reserve Fund – Give effect to the MoU and the RMAC as custodians of the MISP – (public service)
• $700,000.00 – (50.0%) – Provision for Government services and contracts via MLA or direct payment – (public service)
• $200,000.00 – (14.29%) – Representative and advocacy role – affiliate SFO membership fees

Total Income – $1,400,000.00

Thru their solitary affiliate SFO voting membership structure, CCA by its own implied admission (above) represent less than 10% of all producers of grass-fed Cattle.

Given that all CCA’s sugar-daddy Government funding would be deemed “Political” and cannot be used for CCA’s representative and advocacy role and when removed from the funding equation, as their SFO affiliates had originally established in 1979, then by any measure CCA is indeed financially, morally and ethically insolvent.

Given that at least 90% of all producers of grass-fed Cattle fall outside of the SFO affiliate CCA model, the question arises whether or not CCA has sufficient producer standing to even form or appoint its own select committee to review CCA’s own representative and advocacy funding shortfall.

In another article on Beef Central – “Ogilvie rejects Maconochie criticism of Cattle Council” – Mr Ogilvie takes aim at Mr Maconochie for daring to state the bleeding obvious.

The bleeding obvious as stated by Mr Maconochie headed – “Cattle Council levy push “immoral”: Maconochie”

“Mr Maconochie said that after watching the Cattle Council of Australia restructure process unfold in recent months, he felt compelled to speak out about the direction it is taking.

His key concerns surround CCA’s plans to solve its funding shortfall by accessing a component of the $5/head transaction levy.  He sees the move as an easy option that ignores the fundamental problems that led to organisation’s funding crisis, and amounts to an attempt by directors to “cling to power”.

“By raiding the levy to keep afloat, yet sticking to a similar model that caused them to gradually go down the gurgler in the first place, is a cop out and one that threatens the whole fabric of decent representation,” Mr Maconochie told Beef Central.” 

Mr Ogilvie returns fire at Mr Maconochie by stating:

“Cattle Council of Australia president Andrew Ogilvie has hit back at criticism levelled at the organisation’s restructure process by former Australian Lot Feeders Association president Sandy Maconochie, describing the Victorian cattleman’s recent broadside as a “negative, provocative and ill-informed rant”.” 

Apparently Mr Ogilvie does not seem to understand the simple concept that taking other people’s money without their consent is in fact “Immoral”, and further, we would say even unethical and illegal; so what does that make us Mr Ogilvie ?  This somewhat bemusing concept of Mr Ogilvie’s is contrary to the fact that the world’s jails are full of people that took other people’s money without their consent.

Mr Ogilvie then trots out the typically SFO inspired ignorant and terribly arrogant “Old Chestnut”:

“The thing that really upset me the most was that he managed to insult the integrity of many hard working Cattle Councillors and State Farming representatives who have really contributed strongly over many years with their time and expertise to advance our industry. 

“SFOs and their members have carried the responsibility of industry representation and it is often a thankless task, and I think it is time a few other people put their hands up to help, and that is what our process is trying to achieve.””

Mr Ogilvie seems to not understand that in 1997 it was in fact CCA, under instruction from SFOs, that presented and fell over itself to the then Federal Government as the “Pharaoh” of all producers of grass-fed Cattle in Australia (SFO members and non-members alike) and signed on the dotted line on their behalf and again, without non-members of SFOs consent.

They did this knowing full well that SFO membership across all commodity categories was vastly in the minority; that knowing full well CCA (or SFO’s) had absolutely no mechanism to identify or contact the majority non-members of SFOs that CCA was holding itself up as the representative of to the Federal Government; that knowing full well the CCA constitution only allows for delegated SFO appointed full membership rights, including voting rights in CCA and as a result; actively discouraged any inclusive “Outside” influences, analysis or alternatives to CCA’s structure, activities and financial arrangements.

According to the Bills Digest No. 79   1997-98 – Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Bill 1997 the SFOs and CCA would have to have known full well that:

“It needs to be remembered that the meat marketing scheme now being proposed had its genesis in the 1995 arrangements described above. It is doubtful, however, that anyone in the industry envisaged then the system now being proposed.

One somewhat curious element is the contribution ascribed to the 1994 Industry Commission (IC) report into Meat Processing. Both in 1995 and currently this report is cited as a factor in the announced changes. However, the report primarily dealt with the processing sector and the only change recommended by the IC in relation to the industry’s statutory bodies was the establishment of a Meat Industry Review Authority under the AMLIPC to evaluate AMLC and MRC programs. While a merger of the AMLC and MRC was suggested as a way of producing savings and closer coordination, it was also acknowledged that there were valid reasons for them not to be merged.”  

It is self-evident that the CCA model is only an exclusive reflection of the rusty SFOs image and the individuals inside of the SFOs have indeed worked hard to that end, and they are now reaping what they have sown.

It is also self-evident that CCA has a very much diminished standing in the grass-fed Cattle sector with which to be conducting a self-preserving restructure, financial or otherwise, and should stand aside as a representative and advocacy Peak Council subject to a full and independent “Review” of the Grass-fed Cattle Representative Sector.

November 11, 2012 | Filed Under: Structure/Legislation/Levies, The Red Meat Industry

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on November 18, 2012 at 9:36am

https://aaap2012.ku.ac.th/index.php?option=com_content&view=art...

We must also remember to keep abreast of other forums where developments may occur that affect Australian's in the Livestock industry,For it is in exactly such forums that advocates for National interests can influence and guide decisions that may end up working against us here in Australia.

After all it is vested interest groups such as the African Union driving the Climate change scam looking to line their respective pockets at our expense,The same thinking will and has been used to disadvantage Australian interests in the past.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on November 18, 2012 at 10:29am

Stephen

Thank you for alerting everyone to this conference. I see that is largely UN sponsored and I will look foward to the papers if they become available after the conference.

The MLA is doing a lot of work (some would say too much) studying feed conversion efficiency and reduction of Methane emmissions through diet and genetics.

Our natural adavantage, I believe, and it is given very little documentation, (Australa barely exists on the UN livestock  map and only as a subsidiary of Oceanea) is in the conversion of pasture to meat.

It is not a system that has a world focus. It is fleetingly acknowledged as a part of production in third world countries.

One of the suggestions to reduce Methane production is the use of the high protien shrub Lucaena. The various impracticalities of this on an industry wide scale have been discussed elsewhere on JG.

Not least among them is the illegality of clearing country to plant the crop in very many areas.

This is one of the intros.

Opening the symposium, Professor Margaret Gill (Aberdeen University, UK) will consider the unsustainability of feeding high levels of grain to ruminants to achieve high levels of animal performance, and provide convincing evidence of the untapped potential of forages and high fibre biomass feeds to achieve similar outcomes, whilst taking due regard of the need to contain the global contribution of livestock to greenhouse emissions. The paper will further suggest that the real efficiency of animal production systems should be based on the production of human edible animal products from the human inedible portions, by which measure cattle would become more efficient converters of feed than either pigs or poultry.

In places such as the Phillipines and Indonesia there is a very flexible approch to what is fed to cattle and includes fruit and brewery waste.

This efficient use of waste materials and pasture has been ignored by the anti-meat brigade and much of their criticism is based on the mistaken view that most of our meat is grain fed.

Our pasture system makes very good use of country that is otherwise unsuitable for agriculture.

That does not stop WWF railing at the AREA of country used for beef and sheep production.

I think that concern is misplaced and it would be interesting to know the exact reason why they favour more intensive systems and all the acknowledged attendent problems.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on December 6, 2012 at 5:08pm

A fanatic with an ABC microphone

by Walter Starck

November 27, 2012

---

On November 24, 2012, the ABC Radio National program, The Science Show, broadcast a revealing segment entitled Attitudes to climate change. The ABC’s well known and long-time science presenter, Robyn Williams, started the piece with the extraordinary statement:

“Now, what if I told you that paedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma, or that smoking crack is a normal part, and a healthy one, of teenage life, to be encouraged?”

The program then went on for 16 minutes of virulent denigration of the moral and intellectual character of any who question the imminent reality of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

---

Such gratuitous criticism often has an ironic aspect in that it tends to reveal more about its source than it does of its subject. In this instance several things stand out. The first is the overtone of righteousness by the presenter in his disparagement of climate sceptics. At times he virtually trembles with moral virtue. His lead-off with the implied suggestion of CAGW as the moral equivalent of paedophilia poses some disturbing questions. Does he really believe this and, if so, what is his reasoning?

Even more uncomfortable is the question of why the choice of this especially extreme and distasteful simile? One might be forgiven for wondering what might be behind this particular choice of simile. Following just after the recent BBC scandal it seems an especially poor sense of timing, if nothing else.

As for the possible threats or benefits of AGW, the threats are all hypotheticals which are highly uncertain in magnitude, timing and effect. Several benefits seem strongly probable. One is the increased primary productivity and greening of arid regions through the increased efficiency of water usage in plants from increasing CO₂. There is also nothing to indicate that pre-industrial CO₂ levels were optimal -- and good evidence that, throughout most of the history of life on Earth, CO₂ was higher than current levels, yet life flourished.

Further, there is nothing to indicate that the current temperature regime is the optimal one and good reason to expect that a mild warming would in fact be more beneficial than harmful. Another likely benefit comes from the fact that warming must result in increased evaporation, and evaporation must be equalled by precipitation as a global balance. More rainfall and more arable land is probably better than more droughts and more desert.

Another key point of the program was a claimed consensus of 97% of climate experts agreeing on CAGW. In addition to being provably untrue, this claim, even if true, is decidedly unscientific, as the ultimate authority in science is empirical evidence not expert opinion. In view of the many critical uncertainties involved in climate science, no one with any genuine expertise in the matter could truthfully say with any confidence what the actual warming has been over the past century, or how much of it might be attributable to AGW, or what the actual climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 really is. Anyone who asserts great certainty in specific estimates about such things must be either not very well informed or seriously confused about what constitutes scientific truth.

All that is required to be a "climate scientist" is to publish on something and claim it is caused by, or is threatened by, AGW. In this manner the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies in Townsville has become the world' second most-cited climate research institution, despite doing no actual research on climate. One may be a biologist or even a geographer, and having thus professed to acceptance of the one true faith, one is instantly deemed to be an authority endowed with knowledge, expertise and understanding of climate beyond the ken of mere physicists, meteorologists, paleoclimatologists and other such unenlightened sceptics.

For otherwise unknown third-rate academics CAGW has much to offer. It has provided fame and, fortune plus a delicious sense of self-importance and moral righteousness. For journalists, activists and politicians the free hit of importance and righteousness is also mightily tempting. Despite no warming for 16 years, having every prediction yet tested fail, and with repeated exposures of major scientific malfeasance among its leaders and volumes of other conflicting evidence continuing to mount, the cult of CAGW still manages to retain a remarkable degree of faith among its adherents.

To see past all of the p****** contests, personal denigration and shonky science doesn’t require a super computer and a PhD. Just consider the basic mechanics. Increasing CO₂ in the atmosphere does not increase the amount of IR radiation from the surface, nor does it increase the total amount of IR absorbed by the atmosphere since this was already virtually all absorbed within about a dozen metres of the surface even at preindustrial levels of CO₂. What more CO₂ does do is absorb the back radiated IR even closer to the surface. However, the thin layer near the surface which is being warmed is constantly being mixed into a vastly greater volume of the atmosphere by convection and wind turbulence. Wind and convection also carry large amounts of thermal energy away from the surface by evaporation and release it through condensation at high altitudes, where it can radiate away into space. Since increased CO₂ does not increase the total amount of energy being absorbed and cannot "trap" it in a physically confined space as does an actual greenhouse, the “greenhouse effect” of more CO₂ is highly ineffectual.

The AGW “greenhouse” has no walls or roof. It is something only an academic would construct, much less move into and abuse anyone who points out that the structure has some critical gaps in it. Then, to add righteousness to stupidity, they want to make everyone else start living according to their plan.

That the science presenter of the national broadcaster should so grossly misrepresent science and blatantly disregard its basic principles and ethics is inexcusable. That he should continue to use the national broadcaster to propagate the most extreme and doubtful prophecies of climate extremists as unquestionable scientific certainty is a travesty. That he should also foully denigrate highly qualified and well-founded dissenting opinion by equating it with the vilest of perversions is almost beyond belief.

Robyn Williams is making Australian climate science into a global farce. His continued employment as a presenter of Australian science is a national disgrace.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on December 6, 2012 at 5:45pm

National disgrace is that we continue to fund either SBS and the ABC publically for both organisations have shown their true colors in heavy bias of varying degrees.

 

The ABC is nothing less then the Media arm of the Australian Communist  Labor Party and has a definate Anti Australian Bias.

SBS differs in that the arrogant lack of respect offered toward Australians who actually fund this organisation and it's continued MultiCulturalisn UN agenda push ultimately at the expense of Australia and Australians including many of Legitimate Ethnic Immigrant background.

It also oporates more or less as a propaganda machine for those whom do not hold Australia's best interests at heart.

With a number of friends who are actually older long term stagers at the ABC the inside information regarding Staff selection processes these days along with editorial agenda's and deliberate slant in Favor of a Socialist Worldview and the blatant support of those with similar outlook's exposes the total lack of due process and impartiality that must be a requirement of any Taxpayer funded Media Organisation that it remain Apolitical.

 

It is truly time for a complete overhaul of these organisations including as to whether they continue to be funded by the Taxpayer and how and why they are exempt from Rules Private sector media Organisations must adhere to,They deserve zero exemptions for to allow such is discriminating against another group and is therefore totally indefensible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on December 6, 2012 at 7:53pm

But do they have available their Charter of Editorial Policies and Code of Practice so we can actually know what standards they have set themselves. Emphasis on setting their own agenda.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Cox on December 17, 2012 at 10:37pm

Some Documentation of International Farming Finance and Global Markets

Attachments:

• 2010-sympos-farming-finance-global-full.pdf, 4.7 MB

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• 38
• 39
• Next ›
• Page