Carbon hoofprint: Cows supplemented with rbST reduce agriculture's environmental impact

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

Milk goes green: Cows that receive recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) make more milk, all the while easing natural resource pressure and substantially reducing environmental impact, according to a Cornell University study to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (June 30, 2008.)

Producing milk uses large quantities of land, energy and feed, but rbST – the first biotech product used on American farms — has been in agricultural use for nearly 15 years. Now it is found to reduce the carbon hoofprint by easing energy, land and nutritional inputs necessary to sustain milk production at levels sufficient to meet demand.

This research found that, compared to a non-supplemented population, giving rbST to one million cows would enable the same amount of milk to be produced using 157,000 fewer cows. The nutrient savings would be 491,000 metric tons of corn, 158,000 metric tons of soybeans, and total feedstuffs would be reduced by 2,300,000 metric tons. Producers could reduce cropland use by 219,000 hectares and reduce 2.3 million tons of soil erosion annually.

In 2007, there were 9.2 million cows in the United States. For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the world would see an environmental saving of 824 million kilograms of carbon dioxide, 41 million kilograms of methane and 96,000 kilograms of nitrous oxide. For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the reduction in the carbon footprint is equivalent to removing approximately 400,000 family cars from the road or planting 300 million trees.

"Supplementing cows with rbST on an industry-wide scale would improve sustainability and reduce the dairy industry's contribution to water acidification, algal growth, and global warming," says Judith L. Capper, Cornell post-doctoral researcher, and the lead author of "The Environmental Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) Use in Dairy Production," PNAS.

Joining Capper on the paper: Dale E. Bauman, Cornell professor of animal science and the corresponding author; Euridice Castaneda-Gutierrez, former Cornell post-doctoral researcher; and Roger A. Cady, of Monsanto, St. Louis. Cornell funded the research.

"Sustainability is important in agricultural production, with an emphasis placed upon meeting human food requirements while mitigating environmental impact," said Bauman. "This study demonstrates that use of rbST markedly improves the efficiency of milk production, mitigates environmental impact including greenhouse gas emissions and reduces natural resource requirements such as fossil fuel, water and land use."

Source: Cornell University

link

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

bump

[one...two...tree 2,762]

LOL...oh my...what steps Monsanto will go to promote their patented product.

[GaryC 7]

How did I know you would react that way? Your as easy to read as a first grade textbook.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How did I know you would react that way? Your as easy to read as a first grade textbook.

Gary, look who funded the research...Geezuz. Can we at least agree that when you want unbiased research you make sure that the funding isn't coming from a company who stands to benefit financially from that research? It's called, conflict of interest.

[GaryC 7]

How did I know you would react that way? Your as easy to read as a first grade textbook.

Gary, look who funded the research...Geezuz. Can we at least agree that when you want unbiased research you make sure that the funding isn't coming from a company who stands to benefit financially from that research? It's called, conflict of interest.

Yeah, a company that funds research is always altering the truth.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How did I know you would react that way? Your as easy to read as a first grade textbook.

Gary, look who funded the research...Geezuz. Can we at least agree that when you want unbiased research you make sure that the funding isn't coming from a company who stands to benefit financially from that research? It's called, conflict of interest.

Yeah, a company that funds research is always altering the truth.

Good grief, Gary. So you're now saying that you don't have any qualms about conflict of interest? Interesting. I'll keep that in mind next time you bring it up.

[GaryC 7]

How did I know you would react that way? Your as easy to read as a first grade textbook.

Gary, look who funded the research...Geezuz. Can we at least agree that when you want unbiased research you make sure that the funding isn't coming from a company who stands to benefit financially from that research? It's called, conflict of interest.

Yeah, a company that funds research is always altering the truth.

Good grief, Gary. So you're now saying that you don't have any qualms about conflict of interest? Interesting. I'll keep that in mind next time you bring it up.

No, I am saying that your wrong with your blanket assumtion that if a company funds research then it's always tainted.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How did I know you would react that way? Your as easy to read as a first grade textbook.

Gary, look who funded the research...Geezuz. Can we at least agree that when you want unbiased research you make sure that the funding isn't coming from a company who stands to benefit financially from that research? It's called, conflict of interest.

Yeah, a company that funds research is always altering the truth.

Good grief, Gary. So you're now saying that you don't have any qualms about conflict of interest? Interesting. I'll keep that in mind next time you bring it up.

No, I am saying that your wrong with your blanket assumtion that if a company funds research then it's always tainted.

LOL...it's not whether its tainted research or not...its conflict of interest! It's a general prinicipal that makes judges, lawyers, politicians, etc. to excuse themselves from deciding on issues where they stand to benefit from. I'd like to think you'd uphold such a principal as something that all fields of study should, no?

[GaryC 7]

How did I know you would react that way? Your as easy to read as a first grade textbook.

Gary, look who funded the research...Geezuz. Can we at least agree that when you want unbiased research you make sure that the funding isn't coming from a company who stands to benefit financially from that research? It's called, conflict of interest.

Yeah, a company that funds research is always altering the truth.

Good grief, Gary. So you're now saying that you don't have any qualms about conflict of interest? Interesting. I'll keep that in mind next time you bring it up.

No, I am saying that your wrong with your blanket assumtion that if a company funds research then it's always tainted.

LOL...it's not whether its tainted research or not...its conflict of interest! It's a general prinicipal that makes judges, lawyers, politicians, etc. to excuse themselves from deciding on issues where they stand to benefit from. I'd like to think you'd uphold such a principal as something that all fields of study should, no?

I love the way you assume so much. You assume that anything big business does is underhanded. You assume that big business is always trying to cheat the public. I have no idea about this particular subject whether it's slanted or not. I am just amused at your standard response.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists.

However, conflicts of interest do not only apply to professionals. A conflict of interest arises when anyone has two duties which conflict - for example an employee's duty to well and faithfully perform their work as purchasing manager, and that same employee's familial duty to their sibling who happens to be tendering for the sale of widgets to the employee's employer. In that case the employee has a conflict of interest, despite the fact that they are not a lawyer, doctor, politician etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

[GaryC 7]

Your a riot Steven. A textbook, down the line liberal. Wiki should just put your picture next to the definition of liberal. It's all that needs to be said.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your a riot Steven. A textbook, down the line liberal. Wiki should just put your picture next to the definition of liberal. It's all that needs to be said.

Don't turn this into a personal attack, Gary...it's a worthy argument. You're basically saying that you have no qualms about conflict of interest when it comes to scientific research. Based on that logic, you wouldn't dare to question the legitimacy of a study that concluded smoking wasn't hazardous to one's health if the research was funded by the tobacco industry. Quite an interesting set of principals you uphold.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[GaryC 7]

Your a riot Steven. A textbook, down the line liberal. Wiki should just put your picture next to the definition of liberal. It's all that needs to be said.

Don't turn this into a personal attack, Gary...it's a worthy argument. You're basically saying that you have no qualms about conflict of interest when it comes to scientific research. Based on that logic, you wouldn't dare to question the legitimacy of a study that concluded smoking wasn't hazardous to one's health if the research was funded by the tobacco industry. Quite an interesting set of principals you uphold.

The study is simple, more milk from fewer cows. Fewer cows less impact on the environment. Yet you attack it and cite a conflict of interest. It's your typical response to everything relating to big business.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your a riot Steven. A textbook, down the line liberal. Wiki should just put your picture next to the definition of liberal. It's all that needs to be said.

Don't turn this into a personal attack, Gary...it's a worthy argument. You're basically saying that you have no qualms about conflict of interest when it comes to scientific research. Based on that logic, you wouldn't dare to question the legitimacy of a study that concluded smoking wasn't hazardous to one's health if the research was funded by the tobacco industry. Quite an interesting set of principals you uphold.

The study is simple, more milk from fewer cows. Fewer cows less impact on the environment. Yet you attack it and cite a conflict of interest. It's your typical response to everything relating to big business.

It's the conclusion of that report - which basically correlates bovine growth hormone usage to reducing the carbon footprint. While the logic - more milk from less cows, is straight forward - taking that to mean that the use of bovine growth hormone is 'greener' than traditional methods is ridiculous at best.

And this points to a larger problem that is going one with all research in general - there's not enough government funds for independent research. Consumers should be suspicious of any research done by the industries which directly benefit from that research....again the principal of conflict of interest should be upheld.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Jabberwocky