For Like minded people who like to see-
The Queensland Country Life today carried a story entitled “WWF sinks hooks deeper into beef industry” by Brad Cooper which makes it beyond doubt that WWF is to project manage beef sustainability courses at the behest of Mc Donalds and with the full co-operation of CCA and MLA.
WWF, through their influence with the Greens in Queensland have been responsible for Vegetation Management laws implemented without ‘just terms’ and with no carbon credit for avoided deforestation. Those were stolen by the government to meet its Kyoto commitments.
An early task force reviewing damage to the Great Barrier Reef wanted to say that the reef was in good shape. However they bowed to the protests of the WWF representative and highlighted the small areas that appeared slightly damaged. WWF have claimed ever since that farming and grazing are damaging the reef in spite of lack of research and knowledge that urban centres are actually causing more alleged pollution.
All green groups have been involved in Wild Rivers legislations and declarations and possible World Heritage listing claiming on the one hand that the areas are either pristine or retaining most of their natural values and on the other denigrating the cattlemen who have lived there for more than 100 years for degrading the landscape and it therefore needs protection.
This legislation has put those graziers in a time warp whose effects will not be felt immediately but over time as it becomes impossible to adopt the results of modern research they will start to bite. One of the great lies told is that declaration will protect the areas from mining and CSG exploitation.
The greatest harm of all has been to our reputation, our self esteem and sense of worth that comes from knowing that you are doing a worthwhile job-feeding the people of the world.
WWF and others have taken the flawed findings of ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow” and publicised them to the point where vegetarian celebrities, authors, journalists, governments and research organisations including our own National Health and Medical Research Council have urged limited or zero meat intake on environmental grounds.
The upshot is that our credentials have been damaged as part of a campaign by environmentalists to discredit those of us who live by the land in order to set themselves up as the environmental gods and the only people deserving of dictating policy and receiving funding and even big business has fallen for the scam.
Be aware that when you respond to that beautifully worded invitation to an Ausgraze workshop your presenter will be in the employ of WWF and the “voluntary” course will soon become mandatory.
Have CCA and MLA let us down once again by not highlighting the science that is on our side instead of responding to the dark green Mob.
The table below is found at page two of the document, Naked extortion? Environmental NGOs imposing [in]voluntary regulations on consumers and business found at the IPA web site. To read the entire document click on this link.
PRECEDING DISCUSSION - http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/international-green-group...
Beef Central article, WWF: To engage or not to engage?
Follow up article by Brad Cooper published at farmonline, Sustainable beef plan under wraps
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.
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)
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.
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:
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.
It'll keep a whole road train load of researchers happy Rob.
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:
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:
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:
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.
Mr Ogilvie returns fire at Mr Maconochie by stating:
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”:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Some Documentation of International Farming Finance and Global Markets