• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Cow Tax??? - yup, the EPA is considering a "fart tax" on livestock

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cow Tax??? - yup, the EPA is considering a "fart tax" on livestock

    No, your eyes are not deceiving you, our stinking government is at it again. They are insistent on taxing you and your lifestyle until you become a zombie government slave. And before anyone starts complaining that this will only apply to those big evil commercial farms, read for comprehension. They want to tax as such:

    “The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”

    Those numbers are small family run farms and ranches. I propose a tax on every word a congressman speaks. There is so much hot air coming out of DC, we could balance the US budget within a month. I will be writing to my reps to complain about this. I know horses will be next on the tax list if this goes through.

    Read on for this absurd idea coming out of DC:

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...230165231.aspx

    EPA 'Cow Tax' Could Charge $175 per Dairy Cow to Curb Greenhouse Gases
    Farm Bureau warns just this one rule may increase milk production costs up to 8 cents a gallon.

    By Jeff Poor
    Business & Media Institute
    1/5/2009 3:55:30 PM

    Call this one of the newest and innovative ways your government has come up with to battle greenhouse gas emissions.

    Indirectly it could be considered a cheeseburger tax, but one of the suggestions offered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is to levy a tax on livestock.

    The ANPR, released early this year, would give the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas for not only greenhouse gas from manmade sources like transportation and industry, but also “stationary” sources which would include livestock.

    The New York Farm Bureau assigned a price tag to the cost of greenhouse gas regulation by the EPA in a release last month.

    “The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would upwards of $20 per hog,” the release said. “Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.”

    Kate Galbraith, correspondent for The New York Times, noted on the Times’ “Green Inc.” blog that such a “proposal is far from being enacted” and that the “hysteria may be premature.”

    But Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau, warned it’s certainly feasible – especially based on the rhetoric of President-elect Barack Obama and the use of the EPA to combat global warming. Such action by an Obama administration would take an act of Congress for livestock to be exempt.

    “The new president has been on record as saying that he really supports regulating greenhouse gases out of the Clean Air Act,” Krause said to the Business & Media Institute. “So, we really have to keep an eye on it. Legislation would really be the only way to exempt it at this point – the cow tax.”

    Krause said it is difficult to quantify the cost that might be passed directly to the consumer by farmers from the legislation, but predicted it would mean higher costs for dairy production.

    “It’s hard to figure what it would do to consumer prices since farmers, unlike other industries, really can’t pass their cost along directly like utilities and things do,” “About the only thing we could realistically come up, in terms of any of this stuff – it would add between 7 and 8 cents per gallon of milk costs to farmers. So it would cost them 7 or 8 cents more to produce a gallon of milk.”

    Even the Department of Agriculture warned the EPA that smaller farms and ranches would have difficulty with limits as much as 100 tons annually on emissions:

    “If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9 million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271 acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance costs that would be involved.”

  • #2
    more info here, too...
    The proposal announced by the
    EPA was an advance announcement in anticipation of an actual regulation
    that would likely be brought up for government approval in 2009.
    The EPA greenhouse gas emissions proposal would trigger a permitting
    process that would include some livestock operations and potentially cause a
    tremendous hardship for producers. “Any proposal officially posted by the
    EPA for public comment is something that should be taken seriously,” said
    Sparks. “This is a perfect example of why the EPA would post this type of
    information on their website for comments, to get a reaction from farmers
    and producers.” Sparks says that he and the Department of Agriculture &
    Industries’ staff will continue to monitor the issue, work closely with other
    agricultural organizations, and keep farmers abreast of any updates.
    More information about this proposed regulation can be found online
    at http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2008/July/Day-30/a16432a.htm.

    Comment


    • #3
      The only fart tax this country needs is one on politicians.
      Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
      Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
      -Rudyard Kipling

      Comment


      • #4
        That really is so far out there that its hard to believe...but then so is NAIS and other such things. Amazing...just amazing!

        Comment


        • #5
          Seriously, if this @#(*%$ tax passes then the price of beef and milk are going to go through the roof. The average American will not be able to afford any bovine products (milk, cheese, beef, etc).

          We raise beef cattle and our profit per cow is about $90. If they tax us $87.50 then our profit goes out the window and we can no longer afford to produce beef. If every beef producer faces this then there will be no beef.

          This is the dumbest damn tax I have ever heard of!!!!!! The politicians in congress can't possible let this thing pass.
          RIP Kid Gloves (Holly) 1992 TBxHanv CCI*** mare.
          http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/holly
          New mare: Miss Bunny Express (Missy) 1995 AQHA Jumper mare.
          http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/missy

          Comment


          • #6
            ...................dumbest thing I've ever heard. seriously.
            BDC

            Comment


            • #7
              It just makes no sense. They say they are doing it to keep the air clean, but the government doesn't do anything about all the sugar cane fields that are burnt every year in Louisiana. It is so bad that it actually "snows" ash around here.....now that certainly can't be good for the air.
              Elisha

              Comment

              • Original Poster

                #8
                Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think those tax rates are yearly. If it is just a one time tax per animal when is the tax payed? What if the animal dies before any profit is obtained, is the tax reimbursed (obviously no). If the cow is sold, who pays the tax? These questions lead me to think it is a yearly tax for the number of head. As well , I think they are going to run this much like the taxes they will levy on non-living emission producing businesses.

                So, the person who only makes $90 per cow will lose money on that cow because of the tax.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wonder how much it will cost in studies to figure out how much a cow farts annually?
                  Surely, it will vary with the type of grain and grass/hay it eats. And then not all cows
                  fart equally as all people do not fart equally.

                  Truly wonder where these idjits get these ideas......and they are probably the first ones to
                  complain about increased prices when they go shopping. Sigh!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If you read the document, this is the EPA having a temper tantrum.

                    http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2008/July/Day-30/a16432a.htm

                    The EPA lost a court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, where 12 states sued the EPA asking it to regulate greenhouse gases in 2003. The EPA administrator refused. They not only refused to regulate, but they blocked states from creating their own regulations.

                    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/05-1120.pdf
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massach...tection_Agency
                    http://www.pewclimate.org/epavsma.cfm

                    (One might note that this happened in the days of cheap oil, when GM et al were horrified that the actions of these states might cut into their SUV profits. The US automakers were also key players in the suit. Better to spend money on lawyers rather than technology, eh?)

                    So EPA's response is this "advance notice of rulemaking". IE, "fine, we'll regulate your stupid greenhouse gases, and we'll make it as obnoxious as possible, nyah nyah!"

                    SUMMARY: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) presents
                    information relevant to, and solicits public comment on, how to respond
                    to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. In that
                    case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
                    authorizes regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they meet the
                    definition of air pollutant under the Act. In view of the potential
                    ramifications of a decision to regulate GHGs under the Act, the notice
                    reviews the various CAA provisions that may be applicable to regulate
                    GHGs, examines the issues that regulating GHGs under those provisions
                    may raise, provides information regarding potential regulatory
                    approaches and technologies for reducing GHG emissions, and raises
                    issues relevant to possible legislation and the potential for overlap
                    between legislation and CAA regulation. In addition, the notice
                    describes and solicits comment on petitions the Agency has received to
                    regulate GHG emissions from ships, aircraft and nonroad vehicles such
                    as farm and construction equipment. Finally, the notice discusses
                    several other actions concerning stationary sources for which EPA has
                    received comment regarding the regulation of GHG emissions.
                    The implications of a decision to regulate GHGs under the Act are
                    so far-reaching that a number of other federal agencies have offered
                    critical comments and raised serious questions during interagency
                    review of EPA's ANPR. Rather than attempt to forge a consensus on
                    matters of great complexity, controversy, and active legislative
                    debate, the Administrator has decided to publish the views of other
                    agencies and to seek comment on the full range of issues that they
                    raise. These comments appear in the Supplemental Information, below,
                    followed by the June 17 draft of the ANPR preamble prepared by EPA, to
                    which the comments apply. None of these documents represents a policy
                    decision by the EPA, but all are intended to advance the public debate
                    and to help inform the federal government's decisions regarding climate
                    change.
                    "If you make us regulate it, we'll be forced to write the regulations really badly because the Mean Old Supreme Court made us!"

                    Preface From the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

                    In this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), the
                    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks comment on analyses and
                    policy alternatives regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) effects and
                    regulation under the Clean Air Act. In particular, EPA seeks comment on
                    the document entitled ``Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
                    Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act'' and
                    observations and issues raised by other federal agencies. This notice
                    responds to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA
                    and numerous petitions related to the potential regulation of
                    greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
                    EPA's analyses leading up to this ANPR have increasingly raised

                    [[Page 44355]]

                    questions of such importance that the scope of the agency's task has
                    continued to expand. For instance, it has become clear that if EPA were
                    to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the
                    Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also
                    emit GHGs--such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and
                    hospitals--could also be triggered. One point is clear: The potential
                    regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act
                    could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would
                    have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and
                    touch every household in the land.
                    This ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of
                    whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under
                    the Clean Air Act. This document summarizes much of EPA's work and lays
                    out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of
                    this work. EPA is publishing this notice today because it is impossible
                    to simultaneously address all the agencies' issues and respond to our
                    legal obligations in a timely manner.
                    I believe the ANPR demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law
                    originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct
                    health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global
                    greenhouse gases. Based on the analysis to date, pursuing this course
                    of action would inevitably result in a very complicated, time-consuming
                    and, likely, convoluted set of regulations. These rules would largely
                    pre-empt or overlay existing programs that help control greenhouse gas
                    emissions and would be relatively ineffective at reducing greenhouse
                    gas concentrations given the potentially damaging effect on jobs and
                    the U.S. economy.
                    Given that we're getting a new EPA administrator, and given that the comment period is expired, I think we can all relax about this particular document for now. And no worries, there were plenty of comments agreeing with the EPA director. Indeed, the alarming numbers cited are not from the EPA, but from someone working from a comment submitted by the Department of Agriculture, to wit:

                    If GHG emissions from agricultural sources are regulated under the
                    CAA, numerous farming operations that currently are not subject to the
                    costly and time-consuming Title V permitting process would, for the
                    first time, become covered entities. Even very small agricultural
                    operations would meet a 100-tons-per-year emissions threshold. For
                    example, dairy facilities with over 25 cows, beef cattle operations of
                    over 50 cattle, swine operations with over 200 hogs, and farms with
                    over 500 acres of corn may need to get a Title V permit. It is neither
                    efficient nor practical to require permitting and reporting of GHG
                    emissions from farms of this size. Excluding only the 200,000 largest
                    commercial farms, our agricultural landscape is comprised of 1.9
                    million farms with an average value of production of $25,589 on 271
                    acres. These operations simply could not bear the regulatory compliance
                    costs that would be involved.
                    It's not happening. And if it comes up again, there will be a new comment period.
                    Last edited by poltroon; Jan. 6, 2009, 02:44 AM.
                    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tx3dayeventer View Post
                      Seriously, if this @#(*%$ tax passes then the price of beef and milk are going to go through the roof. The average American will not be able to afford any bovine products (milk, cheese, beef, etc).

                      We raise beef cattle and our profit per cow is about $90. If they tax us $87.50 then our profit goes out the window and we can no longer afford to produce beef. If every beef producer faces this then there will be no beef.

                      This is the dumbest damn tax I have ever heard of!!!!!! The politicians in congress can't possible let this thing pass.
                      Your about to deal with the new FDA rules on dead cow pick up too. That is going add some expense, especially for the dairy herds. The rendering company we use has started implementing changes to comply, except word on the street is they arent even going to pick up anything older than 24 months so as to be well out of the 30 month zone the govt mandated for testing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Don't ANYONE mention the horse fart button!!!!!!
                        Crayola posse ~ Lazer Lemon yellow
                        Take time to give...it is too short a day to be selfish. - Ben Franklin

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Think it's bad now? Wait'll after Jan. 20th!
                          The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
                          Winston Churchill

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SLW View Post
                            Your about to deal with the new FDA rules on dead cow pick up too. That is going add some expense, especially for the dairy herds. The rendering company we use has started implementing changes to comply, except word on the street is they arent even going to pick up anything older than 24 months so as to be well out of the 30 month zone the govt mandated for testing.
                            We already have to pay $35 a "cow" (could include steers & heifers) to have the rendering company come pick them up. Luckily, most of our beefs are less than 30 months anyways. We can't bury them (via mass pit) because we are under such strict groundwater regulations thanks to the TEQC (Texas Environmental Quality Commission). We have 3 legumes that must catch all runoff and they have to be sledged twice a year at quite a high cost $$$$.

                            Between the environmental wackjobs and if this tax passes, there will seriously not be anyone producing beef. Then people are going to b&^ch when a sirloin is $30 and a pound of hamburger jumps to about $10 a pound.
                            RIP Kid Gloves (Holly) 1992 TBxHanv CCI*** mare.
                            http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/holly
                            New mare: Miss Bunny Express (Missy) 1995 AQHA Jumper mare.
                            http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/missy

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tx3dayeventer View Post
                              We already have to pay $35 a "cow" (could include steers & heifers) to have the rendering company come pick them up. Luckily, most of our beefs are less than 30 months anyways. We can't bury them (via mass pit) because we are under such strict groundwater regulations thanks to the TEQC (Texas Environmental Quality Commission). We have 3 legumes that must catch all runoff and they have to be sledged twice a year at quite a high cost $$$$.

                              Between the environmental wackjobs and if this tax passes, there will seriously not be anyone producing beef. Then people are going to b&^ch when a sirloin is $30 and a pound of hamburger jumps to about $10 a pound.
                              Nope, we will be importing beef from countries that can produce it for peanuts, because they don't have those very costly rules to abide by.
                              We already do so with most of our other produce, vegetables, fruit and nuts.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Sporthorse Shop View Post
                                Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think those tax rates are yearly. If it is just a one time tax per animal when is the tax payed? What if the animal dies before any profit is obtained, is the tax reimbursed (obviously no). If the cow is sold, who pays the tax? These questions lead me to think it is a yearly tax for the number of head. As well , I think they are going to run this much like the taxes they will levy on non-living emission producing businesses.

                                So, the person who only makes $90 per cow will lose money on that cow because of the tax.
                                It would be hard to do on a yearly basis, so my understanding is it was a "per cow" tax. The yearly tax would be difficult because it is very difficult to guess how many bovines there will be on a property in any given year. If you ran a cow/calf operation, those numbers would be easier to figure than a feedlot or preconditioning yard. Even with the cow/calf you would have to figure in the weather, grass availability, etc etc. If the price of cattle drops, we buy buy buy. If the price remains steady we have a steady flow of beefs. So it would be hard to do on a yearly basis. My guess is that they would perhaps implement the tax at the sale barn or do it like vehicle registration (each beef would need an ear tag stating that beefs tax has been paid)
                                RIP Kid Gloves (Holly) 1992 TBxHanv CCI*** mare.
                                http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/holly
                                New mare: Miss Bunny Express (Missy) 1995 AQHA Jumper mare.
                                http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/missy

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Bluey View Post
                                  Nope, we will be importing beef from countries that can produce it for peanuts, because they don't have those very costly rules to abide by.
                                  We already do so with most of our other produce, vegetables, fruit and nuts.
                                  YUCK! Seriously! At least if we keep them produced here in the States we can regulate how they are slaughtered, the cleanliness of the plant, etc etc.
                                  RIP Kid Gloves (Holly) 1992 TBxHanv CCI*** mare.
                                  http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/holly
                                  New mare: Miss Bunny Express (Missy) 1995 AQHA Jumper mare.
                                  http://photobucket.com/tx3dayeventer/missy

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Perhaps this is the wrong audience for this discussion, but I don't think there is any argument from any party that factory farms/CAFOs are huge pollutants - water, air, and can contribute to global warming. I haven't read this specific tax proposal, but I don't see how anyone could be surprised that the EPA will eventually step in.

                                    Not to mention, the price of beef is pretty darn cheap. If the average American can afford to eat meat at every meal, it's not exactly expensive. *Good meat*...well, that's different. But large factory farms and CAFOs sell an abundance of their meat to giants like McDonald's and Walmart.

                                    I'll glady pay more for beef that was grass fed on small farms and not fattened in 5 months on corn, rendered fat and antibiotics. Talk about yuck!

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I will try to explain what all this EPA stuff is, one of the greatest bureocratic boondoggles and government make believe jobs a certain administration with debts to those groups expanded to the monster we have today.

                                      Why do I say that? Because the EPA, in a very narrow interpretation of their mandate, puts their rules above people or economies or cultures.

                                      Where we are now with that mess is carbon credits and demerits.

                                      If you have any livestock, cattle/pigs/horses producing gasses, you have to pay so much for thier "emissions" as per the EPA tables.
                                      If you have grass, you get so many credits, as grass production is considered positive in their tables.
                                      In the end, you pay, or have credits to sell to someone else, according to what the EPA decides your operation rates.

                                      Those of us with cattle on pastures will be getting our carbon credits just for having pastures, the demerits from the cattle we carry, that will be considerably less than our credits.

                                      Those in dairies of feedlots will have so many cattle and nothing to offset their "emissions" as per the EPA tables, so they will have to pay that tax or buy credit producing business or grassland, or buy credits from their neighbors.
                                      This applies to those that keep horses in stables or drylots, or in larger pastures.

                                      I think that those in foreign countries are laughing themselves silly at how we are self destroying with the most absurd ideas and polices, pushed, voted in and mandated by extremists out of control.

                                      The figures used to say livestock emmisssions are harmful are way off, as their own EPA studies show, but no one cares, they plow right on with this:



                                      ---"8/6/2008 2:01:00 PM


                                      Cattle Don't Have Much To Do With Global Warming



                                      ST. PAUL, Minn. - Since the release of a United Nations (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report in 2006, we've heard more and more about the carbon footprints and the green house gases generated in livestock production. That report claims that, on a global basis, raising livestock generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent than use of fossil fuels in driving cars and trucks. This story has appeared over and over again in the media.



                                      A second study that was release by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) didn't receive much media attention, but it should. The EPA report titled "U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks" crunched the numbers to determine that 80 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels and only 2.3 percent from food animal production.



                                      Although the EPA data clearly show the FAO statistics are irrelevant in the United States, mainstream media and online sources have called for Americans to reduce meat consumption to save the planet. Beef checkoff-funded media monitoring data show that cattle and global warming was the fourth-most covered beef industry environmental story in the past 12 months. Consumers are being told they can reduce global warming by reducing the amount of meat their household consumes.



                                      That's undoubtedly bad news for America's beef producers, especially when we realize that the average American consumer is only eating beef twice a week to start with. For most farm and ranch families, only one beef meal a week is unthinkable, but for the average consumer it's not that big of a leap.



                                      Research shows that that 55 percent of Americans believe global warming is occurring because of human activity, and needs immediate attention. Some consumers may be more likely to give up a steak than their SUV. It's the responsibility of cattle producers and industry partners to ensure that they're taking excellent care of the environment and telling the world about it."---

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by S1969 View Post
                                        Perhaps this is the wrong audience for this discussion, but I don't think there is any argument from any party that factory farms/CAFOs are huge pollutants - water, air, and can contribute to global warming. I haven't read this specific tax proposal, but I don't see how anyone could be surprised that the EPA will eventually step in.

                                        Not to mention, the price of beef is pretty darn cheap. If the average American can afford to eat meat at every meal, it's not exactly expensive. *Good meat*...well, that's different. But large factory farms and CAFOs sell an abundance of their meat to giants like McDonald's and Walmart.

                                        I'll glady pay more for beef that was grass fed on small farms and not fattened in 5 months on corn, rendered fat and antibiotics. Talk about yuck!
                                        That is cheap talk and vastly exagerated.

                                        Most of the pollution our society produces is from people living in cities.
                                        Golf courses and yards buy and use more fertilizer and herbicides than all of agriculture for now the past 5 or 6 years, according to the chemical industry sale figures.

                                        I would like to see us try to feed this country without the larger factory farming enterprises.
                                        Sorry, that "small" farmers could feed all is just not realistic, even if they all were the best at keeping the food clean and safe, which in my experience it is not so.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X