News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 News 
 Kidman warns of climate pain for livestock sector 

Kidman warns of climate pain for livestock sector

17 Jul, 2008 11:17 AM
S Kidman & Co managing director, Greg Campbell, says Australian agriculture is still "digesting the doomsday scenarios from Garnaut and the CSIRO", but warns assistance for the livestock sector may fall short.

Speaking to the Agribusiness Association of Australia in Adelaide yesterday, Mr Campbell said "a more sane approach to food production" was needed than what has been presented in the government green paper.

"The reality of grazed landscapes also sequestering carbon as part of the general carbon cycle seems lost in the debate, simply because it's too hard to measure," Mr Campbell said.

"A sane position would, therefore, to require livestock producers to offset a fixed percentage of their methane emissions, which reflected a best guess at the nest emissions arising from grazed landscapes."

But Mr Campbell also said there were positives arising from the ETS that livestock producers could look forward to.

"After some early years of cost and readjustment as livestock producers account for the methane within an emissions trading scheme, there should eventually be a new dawn," he said.

"This will come with the realisation of the stupidity of restricting food production, through livestock, particularly across the cast tropical savannas and temperate steppes of the world were not other forms of agriculture can prevail.

"Science will have progressed to have determined that the carbon cost in free-range ruminant meat production is less severe than that first thought and worth pursuing in an increasingly food-constrained world."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Our exports and diets have been dependant on livestock and their products too long. In a post-carbon age, meat and dairy need to become luxuries, or eliminated. There are already dairy alternatives, and "meats" from gluten and seiten.
Posted by Vivienne, 18/07/2008 8:14:33 AM
Greg Campbell mentions the claims regarding soil carbon being "too hard to measure" - yet in the Green Paper on page 121 there is a graph based on DCC data that CLEARLY shows the impact of full inclusion of Kyoto article 3.4 activities (land use, land use change and forestry) - and if you average out the yellow line you find that this impact is to actually REDUCE our total emissions!!
Posted by soil carbon, 18/07/2008 9:05:36 AM
The damaging impact of livestock greenhouse emissions is an issue that can no longer be ignored. Australia is the driest continent and the fact that meat (beef in particular) and dairy products also require enormous amounts of water must be seriously addressed. Pasture and dairy is the highest water use in the Murray Darling Basin (esp. Victoria). Last year 11.5 million tonnes of the grain we produced was fed to livestock (ABARE). The most logical answer is for Australians to realise that their excessive meat and dairy production and consumption is simply unsustainable and not in our country's best interests. Governments should be assisting farmers to change to more environmentally sustainable and healthy plant production where possible, or maybe even switch to wind, solar and geothermal 'farms'. Where not feasible they should be given financial assistance to leave the land.
Posted by food4thought, 18/07/2008 9:55:08 AM
Sure we have meat and dairy alternatives... these are based on cropping based products which also add to carbon emissions and are largely dependant on climatic factors as well. What would the world do if we all turned to these and then experienced major drought and couldn't grow the required crops any more.... get a grip people we need to find a balance.
Posted by Kylie, 18/07/2008 9:59:54 AM
I think Jessica Simpson had it right, "Real girls eat meat"!!! I thought dairy and meat were important parts of essential dietary requirements. It's an easy course to eliminate something everyone now takes for granted, surely fabricated alternatives to meat and dairy cannot suffice these essential needs.
Posted by buster, 18/07/2008 10:17:07 AM
Traditions and industries dictate what are "essential" food items. There are many healthy and fit individuals and communities who eat no or little meat or dairy. They do need a balance of intake and not just "junk" foods. The protein myth tells us we need far more of it then we really need. More than adequate amounts of proteins are found in plant sources, especially soya beans. However, most soya beans are eaten by livestock instead of being processed for humans. It is a very versatile. Who knows how many cancers are caused by over-eating proteins?
Posted by Milly, 18/07/2008 1:03:23 PM
The lady with the observation re livestock being too long a part of our diet fails to recognise the reason it is. Since man began evolving meat, not vegetable matter, was the building block for humanoid growth and developement. Remove meat/diary/eggs from our diet and we won't be about much longer, or if we can evolve onto an exclusive vegetable (sugar, starch, carbohydrate/fibre rich) based diet we will end up as koalas who eat 12 hrs a day then sleep 12 hours a day as there is insufficient energy remaining after the digestion process to do otherwise.

Actually in retrospect if mankind dies out it will solve the energy crisis, enviromental issues, world poverty, wars, - that's a bit of lateral thinking to digest along with our cucumber sandwich.

Posted by incommunicado, 18/07/2008 1:59:02 PM
I find the ludicrous koala et al analogies, given by people like "incommunicado", tiresome and quite desperate. Incommunicado clearly has also shut himself/herself off from any form of credible science or education, which is a pity. I have been vegetarian for 12 years (my husband 23 years) and both vegan for the past 7 and we have never been healthier. I've experienced two extremely healthy vegan pregnancies in my late 30s and given birth to two almost 9 pound boys, who are now 6 and 5. They have been raised on a primarily vegan diet (they get some dairy/egg via birthday party food), and are extremely healthy, smart (my 6 yo is reading novels and doing multiplication) and full of 'beans', with lack of energy never an issue! Well balanced plant-based, organic where possible, diets contain plenty of protein, iron, calcium and other necessary nutrients (including B12), as anyone willing to educate themselves beyond TV sales advertising will discover, and they can cost less ($$ and natural resources) than meat-based diets! Australians are the highest consumers of animal products in the world (UN FAO), we have the highest rate of colorectal cancer and heart disease, and we've recently been awarded the very disturbing title of most obese. There are thousands of websites and cookbooks with all the dietary info needed and delicious nutritious recipes for anyone who wants to try reducing their environmental impact, improving their health and cause less animal suffering. Nothing wrong with any of those objectives surely?
Posted by food4thought, 20/07/2008 12:10:06 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
S Kidman and Co managing director, Greg Campbell.
S Kidman and Co managing director, Greg Campbell.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
17 July, 2008
POLL
Q: Do you believe the creation of an emissions trading system poses a threat or opportunity for your farm business?

Threat
(59.6%)

Opportunity
(17.7%)

Unsure - more information needed
(22.7%)

Total Votes: 480
Poll Date: 13 July, 2008

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
Subscriptions
 
Grower
 
SJ Facebook
 
Rural Bookshop
 
SJ Twitter


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...