Yes, another ‘brainwave’ from Greenpeace reported in the Herald Sun:
Greenpeace urges kangaroo consumption to fight global warming
MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say.
The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This puts Greenpeace at odds with Terri and Bindi Irwin (wife and daughter of the late Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin) … who have vowed to continue the campaign against the sustainable use of native Australian wildlife including the consumption of Kangaroo meat.
Someone must have discovered that kangaroos don’t belch or fart.
I *really* want to hear more about the research methodology.
>Someone must have discovered that kangaroos don’t belch or fart.
They probably would be humble and honest enough to admit if they were wrong about it as well.
This must really have the left in a tizzy. They want to both save the animals and save the Earth, but the two are at odds.
Does kargaroo meat taste like chicken? Can kangaroos be teamed up with dolphins to fight terrorists on land and sea?
Well we know Schiller doesn’t understand the definition of ruminant but roos do produce less methane and have superior tummy bugs.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2005/1479482.htm
Greenpeace have one small problem though with their plan – taste. I think most people would still go the feedlot finished steak.
Woody – roo meat is tougher than panda but tastier than dolphin.
Greenpeace have said that more people should utilise the millions of kangaroos that are already slaughtered each year by eating them. Dr Mark Diesendorf said kangaroo meat production should be increased. Let’s not confuse the issue here simply to suit personal opinions.
Hi Paul,
We have had a very good discussion on the same topic back at the ” Choosing between
a kangaroo, whale and beef steak”.
Many of us were in support of eating roo meat because it was free range , organic meat and the culling was humane , according to Travis and Luke.
Re why its more eco-friendly to eat roo meat than beef , this was expressed such as
– from the worlwide grain production , the livestock consumes a third of it
– greenhouse emissions from livestock production( waterm fodder, transport etc) were more than from the entire transport sector.
– livestock production means land degradation and loss of biodiversity etc, etc,
This is pointed out in a report by LED ( consisting of FAO and world leading scientists from Rockeller Institution)( See livestock’s long shadow) . I have been ploughing through the 800 page long report and hoping to make a summary.
As a summary here , Greenpeace must have done a turn around re roo’s. About a decade ago they campaigned against kangaroo culling.
Assuming ‘roos belch or fart as much as anything else, Greenpeace may be touting these animals as “green meat,” i.e., an alternative to–well, you know, the livestock operations that people try to make as efficient as humanly possible.
Greenpeace has a vegetarian wing, and every damage the group can inflict on the production of steaks, bacon, etc. will be viewed as beneficial to the cause.
Either way, I note there’s a paucity of data behind the greengreasers’ latest promotion. But to date, nobody’s accused them of being a think tank or running a laboratory.
so roos are OK but not whales?
Hmm, give it time.
What wine goes best with a koala steak?
Roo meat is actually very good, and preferred by Nyoongar people to any other. No fat, except around the kidneys when times are good. Roo feet are gentler on the soil. This is the most sensible suggestion I have heard from Greenpeace. Now they, and all ‘environmental advocates’, need to abandon their silly whitefella urban pseudo-conservation ideas, take the next logical step, and support a return to broadscale traditional mosaic burning, which, amongst other benefits, produced fresh, nitrogen rich feed for roos, and increased their fecundity. It also pre-empted mega-fires, climate changing or not. A refreshing perspective is given by Deborah Bird Rose in her “Nourishing Terrains: Australian Aboriginal Views of Landscape and Wilderness”. Deborah is a scholar and a lady. Greenpeace, ACF, FOE, old uncle Tom Cobley and all, should talk to her, and Aboriginal Elders, and learn to ‘talk to country’.
P.S. Ann, what on earth is ‘organic’ meat? Contains molecules involving carbon and hydrogen? Don’t we all?
Are we killing roos for ‘scientific research’?
Travis,
Great idea. If they killed ‘roos for scientific research, they could make that part of the school lunch program, make the tender bits into sushi, and the rest into dog food.
And then Sea Shepherd could buy a bunch of SUVs and start some land-based stuff a la ‘Mad Max.’
The amazing thing is that people take this popular theater seriously.
Sort of like the Star-War Jedi Church in New Zealand.
http://www.jedichurch.com/5932/home/home.html
Or maybe this is all antipodean humor. Which may be inscrutable.
Mainly to remove grazing competition. In droughts situations roos are kept alive with improved water supplies including bores and those graziers that graze conservatively to maintain ground cover are eventually overrun and eaten out by migrating roos anyway. In extreme drought many roos will still inevitably die. Major issue for SW Queensland. Ecology is boom and bust.
Pity the economics of ‘Roo farming are completely shot to pieces. See “The ruse of farming ‘Roos” and thread at
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4159
The much vaunted superior food conversion efficiency of macropods compared to cattle is offset by the very low meat to bone ratio of macropods. Basically, cattle are the result of centuries of selective breeding to produce animals that respond to good times by producing more and more meat.
‘Roos respond to good times by producing more and more ‘Roos and each one has a low ratio of meat to body mass. And when this low meat percentage is incorporated into the value adding chain the end result, when the full set of production costs are included, is less meat at a higher price.
The current price of ‘Roo meat does not include the full cost of production because most of the overheads are covered by the existing, more productive, beef and sheep operations.
The moral of this tale is, beware of Greens bearing half baked solutions.
‘Roos are also less sustainable grazers than cattle as they are able to graze on short stuff that cows simply cannot get their tongue around. So long after cattle are incapable of reducing ground cover any further, the ‘Roos are still there, taking it right back to bare dirt.
And they are all under the control of the respective State Ministers for the Environment who are apparently incapable of comprehending that the most basic and rational response of a herd manager in drought is to de-stock the herd to a point where residual pasture is not harmed.
They would rather look the other way as the farmers capital stock of fodder species is decimated and the ‘Roos die a slow, miserable death. But what can one expect from hypocritical metrocentric scum who want absolute power with zero responsibility?
Um Luke, I was being facetious.
The ultimate aim of those killing whales for research purposes is to enable humans to eat whales forever. There are means, and there are ends, and even intelligent people seem to get confused about them 🙂
But still, whales are a different class of animal to roos. Excuse me.
I find cute baby roo or baby koala served with the skin on and the head on is not big at family barbecues. While if I serve fish with the skin and head on and the eye staring back I get a stampede and people demanding seconds.
One thing you can say about Greenpeace they are very strange cattle.
Roo, is tough and stringy and therefore better in stew. Snake is ok alone and and green tree frog is plain unless you use garlic and other spices or unless it’s a very rare one.
Baby dolphin is best served sushi style in small bite sized pieces so guests dont know, serve it raw and well drained and they will think it’s tuna. Similarly dugong.
Green peace eco warriors should be served late in the evening slitted and gutted with the head removed (nothing of value to be obtained) on a spit.
Of course green peace hate carbon so they should avoid any food group involving carbon.
Species have a tendency over time to move into an environmental niche as others vacate it.
JK folks before panties start getting twisted.
>even intelligent people seem to get confused about them 🙂
Is that like intelligent fish sometimes taking the bait? 🙂
” Ann, what on earth is ‘organic’ meat? ” – Davey
You tell me Davey, it’s something English speaking persons have labelled food that is produced in a certain way.:) Well, here in Sweden we don’t call it organic , but eco -friendly meat.
” One thing you can say about Greenpeace they are very strange cattle.” – Jack Walker
People might get confused over this Greenpeace statement , even if it seems quite sensible to promote roo meat over red meat nowadays , when there is a big increase in red meat consumption and population growth. We DO know that livestock production is not too good for the environment.
What Greenpeace however must think about with such statements in a strong anti whaling country , is that the ” eco -meat ” argument is quite suitable for whale meat consumption as well.
In Norway, the High North Alliance is using the same arguments to increase whale meat consumption.
They promote it as
– eco-friendly
-animal-frienldy
– no factory farming
– low greenhouse emissions etc.
Blog standards are slipping – lead post title is misspelt.
One up for English, Luke
Excerpt from the LEAD report :
“The “Livestock’s long shadow – environmental issues and options” report (H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. de Haan – 2006, 390 pp) aims to assess the full impact of the livestock sector on environmental problems, along with potential technical and policy approaches to mitigation. The assessment is based on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for livestock production. The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost.”
LEAD website and downloading of the pdf-file:
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/frame.htm
News from Cornell University:
” They found a fivefold difference between the two extremes.
“A person following a low-fat vegetarian diet, for example, will need less than half (0.44) an acre per person per year to produce their food,” said Christian Peters, M.S. ’02, Ph.D. ’07, a Cornell postdoctoral associate in crop and soil sciences and lead author of the research. “A high-fat diet with a lot of meat, on the other hand, needs 2.11 acres.”
“Surprisingly, however, a vegetarian diet is not necessarily the most efficient in terms of land use,” said Peters.
The reason is that fruits, vegetables and grains must be grown on high-quality cropland, he explained. Meat and dairy products from ruminant animals are supported by lower quality, but more widely available, land that can support pasture and hay. A large pool of such land is available in New York state because for sustainable use, most farmland requires a crop rotation with such perennial crops as pasture and hay.”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
So it seems like you don’t have to be a vegetarian to leave the smallest possible ecological footprint. The best solution was to cut down on meat , but not completely!!!!
Quite right Ann, I am now down to one T-Bone per night and I have taken to having a vegetarian lunch (I only eat herbivores)
I think GP should start eating kangas right now, as a sign of their commitment to reducing methane gas.
Apparently there was a paper published recently on introducing the same bacteria from macropod gut into bovines and sheep to help reduce methane. Perhaps someone would like to have a go at looking it up?
A marsupial researcher I was just speaking to said that the kangaroo quota has never been met.
” Apparently there was a paper published recently on introducing the same bacteria from macropod gut into bovines and sheep to help reduce methane. Perhaps someone would like to have a go at looking it up?” – Libby
Somewhere in the LEAD report there is something written about to introduce some bacteria into the gastrointestinal tract of livestock to diminsh blurping.
As far as I recall the research was not very satisfactory ( methinks there was some animal welfare concerns). I will look up the LEAD publishment for you Libby….
Hi Libby,
I found this information on the LEAD document:
“When evaluating techniques for emission reduction it is important to recognize that feed and feed supplements used to enhance productivity may well involve considerable greenhouse gas emissions to produce them, which will affect the balance negatively.
More advanced technologies are also being studied. Though they are not yet operational.
These include:
– reduction of hydrogen production by stimulating acetogenic bacteria
– defaunation ( eliminating certain protozoa from the rumen)
– vaccination ( to reduce methanogens)
These options would have the advantage of being applicable to free-ranging animals , although they may encounter resistance from consumers.
Defaunation has been proven to lead to a 20% reduction in methane emissions on average , but regular dosing with the defaunating agent remains a challenge.”
Greenpeace’s new “Great Whale Trail” is not bad PR.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling/great-whale-trail/map
They warn that “Any deviation [by the whaling fleet from their transect lines] for a single whale or large groups would automatically negate their so-called “scientific” programme.”
I’m a little rusty, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the whaling fleet will be operating in Areas III and V of the Antarctic this upcoming season, probably not the most likely of destinations for these tagged whales to be heading. Maybe the tags will have come away or died before these 19 whales reach their ultimate destinations anyway…
New Caledonia whales are part of Area V. Cook Island whales are tricky as they do not breed in the area but instead pass through. They head either east (into Area VI) or west to places like Tonga (Area V)like the whales on the map appear to be doing. So these whales could well be on your dinner plate next year.
Sorry Ann, forgot to thank you for looking up the bacteria info. Thank you!
I reckon there’s at most a 0.063% chance of that 🙂
Well well well – Greenpeace actually coming up with sustainable agricultural policy. How ironic this and other environmental groups such as the WWF have had absolutely no input into the development of TRULY sustainable agricultural production systems. Farmers manage the bulk of the world’s land and this resource offers the best protection for what uncleared land that still exists. These groups need to understand that it is not how you grow a crop that makes it sustainable, it is the initial crop choice itself. You could grow a conventional or organic banana in Alice Springs. Neither are sustainable!
The future of food must come back to the indignous plants and animals that once proliferated. They are adapted to the climate and to low energy regimes because they generally don’t need inputs in any large amounts.
Ann there should be more lingonberries and cloudberries farmed in Sweden …
” Ann there should be more lingonberries and cloudberries farmed in Sweden …” – Aaron
LOL!!! You know what lingonberries and cloudberries are!!!
Well Aaron, still the forests are full of blueberries,lingonberries but cloudberries are more exclusive and grow only in the north.
The berries provide the brown bears with food. Half of their consumption consists of mentioned berries. During one day they can consume about 80 litres of berries.
Re farming of lingonberries and cloudberries , I don’t know if this can be possible, methinks anyway that it’s very hard to farm cloudberries as they only grow in special places (mostly bogs). Anyway, farmed blueberries don’t taste as good as wild ones…
Given that methane has stabilised in the atmosphere, and may actualy be falling, there is no point in switching from Cows to Kangeroos. Just another futile gesture.
Poor Skippy;
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DCHY6n907OE
Cook, C.W. et al (1981). Alternative grass and grain feeding systems for beef production. Colorado State University Experiment Station Bulletin 579S still makes interesting reading
Paul, please write out 100 times;
kay, aye, en, gee, AYE, are, oh, oh!
Ooops! Fixed!
Ann,
The Norwegians say all the cloudberries belong to them, and you naughty Swedes keep stealing them. Is this true? By the way, are they organic cloudberries?:) To show I am on topic, I wonder what kangaroo tail with cloudberry sauce would taste like?
Hi Davey,
Methinks the cloudberry sauce is excellent with kanga, the sauce suits fine with game:)!
In the north there is a veritable cloudbery war when the season starts, hey who cares what the whale eaters think!!!! 🙂
” …there is no point in switching from Cows to Kangeroos”- Paul
Well, some of our eternal issues on the whales threads are if some animals have more value than others. Seems to me though that the poor cows are discriminated by most people as they are just looked at as some walking burgers without any feelings.
Some point out the cuteness of animals , others their high intelligence as a cause why not kill them. Interesting discussion indeed , but don’t we do a disfavour to all animals , if we discriminate them in such a fashion???
Excerpt from Sea Shepherd’s website on GP’s decision to support roo killing :
” What is Greenpeace thinking? Or are they thinking at all? Greenpeace is actually calling for a massive slaughter of a wildlife species for commercial purposes. It is bad enough that Greenpeace no longer opposes the mass slaughter of harp seals in Canada. It is tragic that Greenpeace continues to support the trophy hunting of polar bears in Alaska and Northern Canada. But to openly support the largest massacre of any wildlife species on the planet is going beyond the bounds of acceptability. Has Greenpeace received a large contribution from the kangaroo meat industry? What would possess them to issue a call for a kangaroo slaughter?”
I know that seals are out for Greenpeace , but I
don’t know if they are supporting trophy hunting of polar bears, who knows????
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_071011_1.html
As far as I have understood some animal welfare organisations in Australia , such as the RSPCA are also in favour of eating kangaroos????
Excerpt from Forbes 1991 ( seems like it was published under Opinion):
” Gudmundsson’s film reexamines evidence produced in 1986 by award-winning Danish journalist Leif Blaedel, which shows that one propaganda film used by Greenpeace was faked by using paid animal torturers. Blaedel cites gruesome scenes in the film Goodbye Joey, which Dirranbandi, Australia, court records had confirmed were faked by its producers. These scenes, he reports, were staged by paid kangaroo shooters who were later fined for torturing kangaroos for the film. Court documents confirm that the film’s fraudulence was a matter of public record in 1983, three years before the last known time Greenpeace Denmark sent it out on request – to Blaedel himself. Greenpeace media director Peter Dykstra says Greenpeace stopped distributing the film in 1983, when it discovered the film’s “integrity problems.”
Link to the above article:
http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_art_green.html
Hey, hey , I found a quite serious error in the Sea shepherd news release now !!!! As far as I know THERE AIN’T NO TROPHY HUNTING OF POLAR BEARS FOR TOURISTS IN ALASKA!!!!
Ann, the only dicrimination I would make on
“walking burgers” is that one cow will provide the same amount of meat as ten roos(my rough estimation). Comes down to whether we value the loss of one life differently to ten.
Rojo, That is the rational that Peta uses to support whaling! That there is a lot of meat on one whale. It is also potentially an arguement against the growing of wheat … as so many mice are killed in the production of an average field of the grain.
Hey Rojo, are you making pro whaling propaganda;-).
So how many animal lives could one of Libby’s humpies save????
Anyway, I’m glad that I’m more or less a vegetarian ( only eating junk food as pasta, wine and chocolate cakes)!!!!
Rojo,
I’m not opposed to farming ( only intensive factory farming), but realise the world population growth. How many people will live on the planet in some decades? About 9 billion I guess.
A growing middle class world wide is demanding for more and more meat. So what are the solutions?
– Making food conversion more efficient
– Cutting down more forests for pastures and cropland, soy bean plantations in South America etc.
– More intensive factory farming ( no pastures or paddocks for animals)
So maybe some natural resources could help to improve the situation ( though methinks it’s only a very small solution). Problem seems to be that roo meat ain’t popular in Australia. ( Though I saw it being sold in Iceland!!!!). Methinks it’s more popular in foreign countries, kinda exotic to eat kanga I guess….
Hi Jen, with regard to Peta, thats more an emotional ploy-give up the ten and then realise how “bad” you are for eating the one. It is however valid if you assume all lives are of equal worth, to which I do not subscribe.
Has anyone tried whale farming?
Ann, depends on whether grain productivity increases in line with demand, if not we will see a greater emphasis on pork and chicken production through their better conversion rates. Perhaps the wild camels in Australia will have something to worry about.
Something in the order of 10% of the worlds grain is lost through spoilage, if saved it could provide 25% more grain available for animal feed(livestock account for approx 40% of grain consumption).
Millions of acres are set to come back into crop production in Ukraine. What it may come down to is whether we want more meat or bio-fuel in the future, and what is affordable.
Captain Ahab tried doing the whale rodeo bronc busting ride. Stayed on the full ten seconds and then some.
Hi Jennifer,
I had no clue that PETA supported whaling, checked out their website:
” WHY WE SHOULD ALLOW WHALING”
http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html
Excerpt from PETA:
“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have recently spoken out in support of the whale harvest and acknowledged that wild harvests such as this involve far less animal cruelty than factory farming”
So Animal rights activists have made a turn around???
Wonder what Watson thinks about this or the AR people who sank the Norwegian whaler ” the Willsassen Senior” recently ? Btw , the whaler is refloated now, but the damages are so big that it seems impossible that it will sail in the near future( major damages on engines and electronics).
Tim Flannery in his book ‘COUNTRY’ writes –“Newsome’s study provided a valuable insight on how delicately balanced life is on this continent, and how easy it is to damage its creatures. It also filled me with fear for the future of the large kangaroos in the face of global warming”. End quote.
This refers to a 1980’s study by Alan Newsome on red kangaroo populations which showed that when they moved into shadeless plains and their testicles heated up…. their fertility plummeted. Therefore as temperatures rise due to climate change, kangaroos will become far less fertile and their numbers will crash. Even now NSW is in a major ongoing drought, the populations are crashing. Dr.David Croft from UNSW is the foremost macropod specialist in this country and is based at the Sturt National Park. He confirms the population crash and the fact that as the commercial industry is killing the Alpha males (the biggest and healthiest kanbgaroos) we are now left with breeding from RUNTS. This obviously leads to a downward spiral which is already in place.