“Climate Change in Your Face” — Great Barrier Reef Suffers Second Consecutive Mass Bleaching as Pote

[Marion Morrison]

Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

1. 
   
   
   • K. R. N. Anthony1,
   • D. I. Kline,
   • G. Diaz-Pulido,
   • S. Dove, and
   • O. Hoegh-Guldberg

Abstract
Ocean acidification represents a key threat to coral reefs by reducing the calcification rate of framework builders. In addition, acidification is likely to affect the relationship between corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellates and the productivity of this association. However, little is known about how acidification impacts on the physiology of reef builders and how acidification interacts with warming. Here, we report on an 8-week study that compared bleaching, productivity, and calcification responses of crustose coralline algae (CCA) and branching (Acropora) and massive (Porites) coral species in response to acidification and warming. Using a 30-tank experimental system, we manipulated CO2 levels to simulate doubling and three- to fourfold increases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection categories IV and VI] relative to present-day levels under cool and warm scenarios. Results indicated that high CO2 is a bleaching agent for corals and CCA under high irradiance, acting synergistically with warming to lower thermal bleaching thresholds. We propose that CO2 induces bleaching via its impact on photoprotective mechanisms of the photosystems. Overall, acidification impacted more strongly on bleaching and productivity than on calcification. Interestingly, the intermediate, warm CO2 scenario led to a 30% increase in productivity in Acropora, whereas high CO2 lead to zero productivity in both corals. CCA were most sensitive to acidification, with high CO2 leading to negative productivity and high rates of net dissolution. Our findings suggest that sensitive reef-building species such as CCA may be pushed beyond their thresholds for growth and survival within the next few decades whereas corals will show delayed and mixed responses.
Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

There are many, many more articles. Not that you would ever alleviate your willful ignorance by actually reading them.

"Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders"


Oh! Looky here! Self-ownage a second time!

So it's a shift towards a positive pH and NOT the temp of the water, amirite?

No, stupid ass. pH and temperature are two factors killing the corals. Those two are the results of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere.

Now now. I was civil and refrained from telling you all about your climate-cult deranged lemming with your head up your ass self that thinks giving money to people to redistribute it will change anything.


"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth"


And this is what the Church of AGW preaches against.

 

[defcon4]

Effects of temperature on the mortality and growth of Hawaiian reef corals

• 
  
  
  • Authors
  • Authors and affiliations

• 
  
  
  • P. L. Jokiel
  • S. L. Coles

Abstract

Three common species of Hawaiian reef corals, Pocillopora damicornis (L.), Montipora verrucosa (Lamarck) and Fungia scutaria Lamarck, were grown in a temperature-regulated, continuous-flow sea water system. The skeletal growth optimum occurred near 26°C, coinciding with the natural summer ambient temperature in Hawaii, and was lowest at 21° to 22°C, representing Hawaiian winter ambient. Levels of approximately 32°C produced mortality within days. Prolonged exposure to temperatures of approximately 30°C eventually caused loss of photosynthetic pigment, increased mortality, and reduced calcification. Corals lived only 1 to 2 weeks at 18°C. The corals showed greater initial resistance at the lower lethal limit, but ultimately low temperature was more deleterious than high temperature. Results suggest that a decrease in the natural water temperature of Hawaiian reefs would be more harmful to corals than a temperature increase of the same magnitude.

Contribution No. 504 of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology.

Effects of temperature on the mortality and growth of Hawaiian reef corals

Again, such questions are very easy to answer, use that thing you are communicating with.

So, that is controlled environment, I am inquiring about actual sea water temperatures on the coral reefs. Anybody bothered to monitor that or just throwing the "climate change" buzz word out there?

Oh fuck you, I just finished a 12 hour hammer down day, and don't feel like looking up any more information for dumbass lazy bastards. Use that machine in front of you.

WTF is wrong with you? Are you constipated? Go to fucking bed and come back tomorrow prepared.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Effects of temperature on the mortality and growth of Hawaiian reef corals

• 
  
  
  • Authors
  • Authors and affiliations

• 
  
  
  • P. L. Jokiel
  • S. L. Coles

Abstract

Three common species of Hawaiian reef corals, Pocillopora damicornis (L.), Montipora verrucosa (Lamarck) and Fungia scutaria Lamarck, were grown in a temperature-regulated, continuous-flow sea water system. The skeletal growth optimum occurred near 26°C, coinciding with the natural summer ambient temperature in Hawaii, and was lowest at 21° to 22°C, representing Hawaiian winter ambient. Levels of approximately 32°C produced mortality within days. Prolonged exposure to temperatures of approximately 30°C eventually caused loss of photosynthetic pigment, increased mortality, and reduced calcification. Corals lived only 1 to 2 weeks at 18°C. The corals showed greater initial resistance at the lower lethal limit, but ultimately low temperature was more deleterious than high temperature. Results suggest that a decrease in the natural water temperature of Hawaiian reefs would be more harmful to corals than a temperature increase of the same magnitude.

Contribution No. 504 of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology.

Effects of temperature on the mortality and growth of Hawaiian reef corals

Again, such questions are very easy to answer, use that thing you are communicating with.

I'll give you this, you're an a-1 advocate for global warming and post good sources.



It's still a bunch of hooey, though.

 

[RodISHI]

So, once again we have the 'Conservatives' purposely derailing a thread. We are seeing the bleaching of corals worldwide, and it is primarily due to the increase in temperature and ocean acidity.

Oh oh oh, now it could be pH too. You just self-owned.

You have exacerbated my tolerance with your flagellant self.

See? I can use big words, too.

All those big words are one huge deflection from the fact they really don't know. So according to that statement in the post above me, the sun is burning through the atmosphere more or something?

No, it is you that does not know, or else lies willfully. There are many articles on the bleaching of coral. All you have to do is look for them. And those from the PNAS are free.

As you keep pushing for taxation for climate change you act like everyone is totally ignorant of what is causing these dead zones. Chemicals, overloads of Nitrates and Phosphates do exactly what is happening to coastal Coral Reefs in the Oceans all over. The same thing basically happens in fresh water eco-systems too. When Andrew hit in the Everglades the whole eco-system died off twice where the damage occurred. Once through wind damage and then again through excess nutrients as the plants started rotting.


Terrestrial ecosystems
Terrestrial ecosystems are subject to similarly adverse impacts from eutrophication.[12] Increased nitrates in soil are frequently undesirable for plants. Many terrestrial plant species are endangered as a result of soil eutrophication, such as the majority of orchid species in Europe.[13] Meadows, forests, and bogs are characterized by low nutrient content and slowly growing species adapted to those levels, so they can be overgrown by faster growing and more competitive species. In meadows, tall grasses that can take advantage of higher nitrogen levels may change the area so that natural species may be lost. Species-rich fens can be overtaken by reed or reedgrass species. Forest undergrowth affected by run-off from a nearby fertilized field can be turned into a nettle and bramble thicket.

Chemical forms of nitrogen are most often of concern with regard to eutrophication, because plants have high nitrogen requirements so that additions of nitrogen compounds will stimulate plant growth. Nitrogen is not readily available in soil because N2, a gaseous form of nitrogen, is very stable and unavailable directly to higher plants. Terrestrial ecosystems rely on microbial nitrogen fixation to convert N2 into other forms such as nitrates. However, there is a limit to how much nitrogen can be utilized. Ecosystems receiving more nitrogen than the plants require are called nitrogen-saturated. Saturated terrestrial ecosystems then can contribute both inorganic and organic nitrogen to freshwater, coastal, and marine eutrophication, where nitrogen is also typically a limiting nutrient.[14] This is also the case with increased levels of phosphorus. However, because phosphorus is generally much less soluble than nitrogen, it is leached from the soil at a much slower rate than nitrogen. Consequently, phosphorus is much more important as a limiting nutrient in aquatic systems.[15]

 

[Marion Morrison]

Nitrogen and phosphate runoff is a serious problem. The "bleaching of coral" could very well be attributed to that.

Around here, there's "Algae blooms" I wonder what causes that? I think it's fertilizer runoff.

 

[RodISHI]

Nitrogen and phosphate runoff is a serious problem. The "bleaching of coral" could very well be attributed to that.

Around here, there's "Algae blooms" I wonder what causes that? I think it's fertilizer runoff.

The algae blooms are generally a sign of nutrient overload.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Nitrogen and phosphate runoff is a serious problem. The "bleaching of coral" could very well be attributed to that.

Around here, there's "Algae blooms" I wonder what causes that? I think it's fertilizer runoff.

The algae blooms are generally a sign of nutrient overload.

Ayep.

 

[RodISHI]

Nitrogen and phosphate runoff is a serious problem. The "bleaching of coral" could very well be attributed to that.

Around here, there's "Algae blooms" I wonder what causes that? I think it's fertilizer runoff.

The algae blooms are generally a sign of nutrient overload.

Ayep.

Another thing about that nutrient overload is it creates the perfect scenario for parasitical organisms to thrive. Surely someone has written that into some of the vast articles and studies written out there. Here these huge feed lots and farmers that ignore what the dangers are to everyone when they apply that shit everywhere. The parasite loads are extremely heavy in ponds and wild animals which in turn affects the domestic animals and people. Once a system is weakened it opens up the door. (parasite being any organism that lives off of another living organism from bacteria, fungi and viruses, everything is more susceptible)

 

[SSDD]

“Climate Change in Your Face” — Great Barrier Reef Suffers Second Consecutive Mass Bleaching as Potential for Record Warm 2017 Looms

On March 2nd, 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was already starting to show signs of bleaching. After suffering a worst-ever coral bleaching event in 2016, concerns were high that warmer waters could again strike the reef — spurring a second consecutive mass die-off. Even worse, some scientists were concerned that 2017’s bleaching could exceed the intensity of the record 2016 event.

Now it appears that just such a catastrophe is underway. And scientists expect about 2/3 of the world’s largest reef to experience bleaching over the next couple of months.

Wow, that is a large percentage of the lower food chain....Playing with fire we're.

Got any actual evidence that it is due to us or are you just reporting that the sky is falling once again?

 

[SSDD]

“Climate Change in Your Face” — Great Barrier Reef Suffers Second Consecutive Mass Bleaching as Potential for Record Warm 2017 Looms

On March 2nd, 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was already starting to show signs of bleaching. After suffering a worst-ever coral bleaching event in 2016, concerns were high that warmer waters could again strike the reef — spurring a second consecutive mass die-off. Even worse, some scientists were concerned that 2017’s bleaching could exceed the intensity of the record 2016 event.

Now it appears that just such a catastrophe is underway. And scientists expect about 2/3 of the world’s largest reef to experience bleaching over the next couple of months.

Wow, that is a large percentage of the lower food chain....Playing with fire we're.

Has anybody blamed trump yet?

I bet Bush will be glad to finally be off the hook.

 

[Crick]

Evidence that coral bleaching is caused by elevated temperatures.

I could not tell who posted this, but someone else did and I thank them very much.

http://cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu/Downloads/Publications/BC_Jokiel_2004_bleaching_chapter.pdf

The Bleaching Phenomenon Reef corals are symbioses that consist of an animal partner and dinoflagellate algae commonly known as zooxanthellae. This delicate association functions only within a very narrow range of environmental conditions in shallow tropical seas (Wells 1957). The symbiosis is thought to have developed as a means of coping with very low concentrations of nutrients in tropical marine waters (Muscatine and Porter 1977). This association provides benefits to both partners. The zooxanthellae are primary producers and supply their coral hosts with photosynthetic products vital to meeting their energetic requirements. In return, the zooxanthellae receive living space and nutrients in the form of waste metabolic products from the host. The tight cycling within the symbioses facilitates the high productivity and calcification rates observed in corals (Falkowski et al. 1984)

. “Coral bleaching”occurs when environmental conditions disrupt the symbiosis, leading the degeneration and/or expulsion of zooxanthellae from the coral host.As a result of photosynthetic pigment loss,the white skeleton becomes visible through the transparent coral tissue, giving the organism a “bleached”white appearance. Bleaching is fatal to the coral unless the symbiotic relationship can be quickly re-established. Reef corals play a central role in coral reef communities, so their continued health is of critical importance. Since the 1980s, spectacular regional bleaching events have occurred on coral reef areas throughout the world with increasing frequency and increasing geographic extent. These mass bleaching events correlate with elevated sea surface temperatures (SST). The mass bleaching phenomenon is believed to be associated with global warming due to anthropomorphic release of carbon dioxide and other gasses (reviewed by Jokiel and Coles 1990; Williams and Bunkley-Williams 1990; Glynn 1991, 1993; Goreau 1992; Pittock 1999; Fitt et al. 2001). The issue of global warming and mass coral bleaching will undoubtedly continue to be a major concern in the field of coral reef ecology[/QUOTE]

That is why the dead zone in the Gulf keeps growing and growing every year

The Gulf Dead Zone has NOTHING to do with the life span of corals. And, while individual corals certainly have a life span, a coral reef, a coral colony under constant conditions is immortal.

Here. Explains the formation of the Gulf Dead Zone. You'll find ZERO mention of coral.

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiative...ofmexico/explore/gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone.xml

 

[Old Rocks]

Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

1. 
   
   
   • K. R. N. Anthony1,
   • D. I. Kline,
   • G. Diaz-Pulido,
   • S. Dove, and
   • O. Hoegh-Guldberg

Abstract
Ocean acidification represents a key threat to coral reefs by reducing the calcification rate of framework builders. In addition, acidification is likely to affect the relationship between corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellates and the productivity of this association. However, little is known about how acidification impacts on the physiology of reef builders and how acidification interacts with warming. Here, we report on an 8-week study that compared bleaching, productivity, and calcification responses of crustose coralline algae (CCA) and branching (Acropora) and massive (Porites) coral species in response to acidification and warming. Using a 30-tank experimental system, we manipulated CO2 levels to simulate doubling and three- to fourfold increases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection categories IV and VI] relative to present-day levels under cool and warm scenarios. Results indicated that high CO2 is a bleaching agent for corals and CCA under high irradiance, acting synergistically with warming to lower thermal bleaching thresholds. We propose that CO2 induces bleaching via its impact on photoprotective mechanisms of the photosystems. Overall, acidification impacted more strongly on bleaching and productivity than on calcification. Interestingly, the intermediate, warm CO2 scenario led to a 30% increase in productivity in Acropora, whereas high CO2 lead to zero productivity in both corals. CCA were most sensitive to acidification, with high CO2 leading to negative productivity and high rates of net dissolution. Our findings suggest that sensitive reef-building species such as CCA may be pushed beyond their thresholds for growth and survival within the next few decades whereas corals will show delayed and mixed responses.
Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

There are many, many more articles. Not that you would ever alleviate your willful ignorance by actually reading them.

"Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders"


Oh! Looky here! Self-ownage a second time!

So it's a shift towards a positive pH and NOT the temp of the water, amirite?

No, stupid ass. pH and temperature are two factors killing the corals. Those two are the results of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere.

Now now. I was civil and refrained from telling you all about your climate-cult deranged lemming with your head up your ass self that thinks giving money to people to redistribute it will change anything.


"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth"


And this is what the Church of AGW preaches against.

You are still so damned ignorant you have no idea what the scientists are telling you. It is the very rapid increase in CO2 that is the problem. Had we increased the CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm over a period of a couple of thousand years, we would not have a problem.

Continental glaciers are present at 180 ppm. Interglacials are at 280 ppm. That is 100 ppm difference over thousands of years. We have added 120 ppm in the space of less than 150 years.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

1. 
   
   
   • K. R. N. Anthony1,
   • D. I. Kline,
   • G. Diaz-Pulido,
   • S. Dove, and
   • O. Hoegh-Guldberg

Abstract
Ocean acidification represents a key threat to coral reefs by reducing the calcification rate of framework builders. In addition, acidification is likely to affect the relationship between corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellates and the productivity of this association. However, little is known about how acidification impacts on the physiology of reef builders and how acidification interacts with warming. Here, we report on an 8-week study that compared bleaching, productivity, and calcification responses of crustose coralline algae (CCA) and branching (Acropora) and massive (Porites) coral species in response to acidification and warming. Using a 30-tank experimental system, we manipulated CO2 levels to simulate doubling and three- to fourfold increases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection categories IV and VI] relative to present-day levels under cool and warm scenarios. Results indicated that high CO2 is a bleaching agent for corals and CCA under high irradiance, acting synergistically with warming to lower thermal bleaching thresholds. We propose that CO2 induces bleaching via its impact on photoprotective mechanisms of the photosystems. Overall, acidification impacted more strongly on bleaching and productivity than on calcification. Interestingly, the intermediate, warm CO2 scenario led to a 30% increase in productivity in Acropora, whereas high CO2 lead to zero productivity in both corals. CCA were most sensitive to acidification, with high CO2 leading to negative productivity and high rates of net dissolution. Our findings suggest that sensitive reef-building species such as CCA may be pushed beyond their thresholds for growth and survival within the next few decades whereas corals will show delayed and mixed responses.
Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

There are many, many more articles. Not that you would ever alleviate your willful ignorance by actually reading them.

"Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders"


Oh! Looky here! Self-ownage a second time!

So it's a shift towards a positive pH and NOT the temp of the water, amirite?

No, stupid ass. pH and temperature are two factors killing the corals. Those two are the results of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere.

Now now. I was civil and refrained from telling you all about your climate-cult deranged lemming with your head up your ass self that thinks giving money to people to redistribute it will change anything.


"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth"


And this is what the Church of AGW preaches against.

You are still so damned ignorant you have no idea what the scientists are telling you. It is the very rapid increase in CO2 that is the problem. Had we increased the CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm over a period of a couple of thousand years, we would not have a problem.

Continental glaciers are present at 180 ppm. Interglacials are at 280 ppm. That is 100 ppm difference over thousands of years. We have added 120 ppm in the space of less than 150 years.

Le Yawn.

Do you really want to get into various plant CO2 absorption rates with me?

I tell you this much, for their "studies" they use all the plants with lower absorption rates.

Grass does twice as good as most of the plants the "climate scientists" test, yet they omit it from their studies, I wonder why?

It doesn't fit their "The sky is falling" narrative. That's why.

/thread Bailing out on Chicken Little.

 

[defcon4]

Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

1. 
   
   
   • K. R. N. Anthony1,
   • D. I. Kline,
   • G. Diaz-Pulido,
   • S. Dove, and
   • O. Hoegh-Guldberg

Abstract
Ocean acidification represents a key threat to coral reefs by reducing the calcification rate of framework builders. In addition, acidification is likely to affect the relationship between corals and their symbiotic dinoflagellates and the productivity of this association. However, little is known about how acidification impacts on the physiology of reef builders and how acidification interacts with warming. Here, we report on an 8-week study that compared bleaching, productivity, and calcification responses of crustose coralline algae (CCA) and branching (Acropora) and massive (Porites) coral species in response to acidification and warming. Using a 30-tank experimental system, we manipulated CO2 levels to simulate doubling and three- to fourfold increases [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection categories IV and VI] relative to present-day levels under cool and warm scenarios. Results indicated that high CO2 is a bleaching agent for corals and CCA under high irradiance, acting synergistically with warming to lower thermal bleaching thresholds. We propose that CO2 induces bleaching via its impact on photoprotective mechanisms of the photosystems. Overall, acidification impacted more strongly on bleaching and productivity than on calcification. Interestingly, the intermediate, warm CO2 scenario led to a 30% increase in productivity in Acropora, whereas high CO2 lead to zero productivity in both corals. CCA were most sensitive to acidification, with high CO2 leading to negative productivity and high rates of net dissolution. Our findings suggest that sensitive reef-building species such as CCA may be pushed beyond their thresholds for growth and survival within the next few decades whereas corals will show delayed and mixed responses.
Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders

There are many, many more articles. Not that you would ever alleviate your willful ignorance by actually reading them.

"Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in coral reef builders"


Oh! Looky here! Self-ownage a second time!

So it's a shift towards a positive pH and NOT the temp of the water, amirite?

No, stupid ass. pH and temperature are two factors killing the corals. Those two are the results of the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere.

Now now. I was civil and refrained from telling you all about your climate-cult deranged lemming with your head up your ass self that thinks giving money to people to redistribute it will change anything.


"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon in life on Earth"


And this is what the Church of AGW preaches against.

You are still so damned ignorant you have no idea what the scientists are telling you. It is the very rapid increase in CO2 that is the problem. Had we increased the CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm over a period of a couple of thousand years, we would not have a problem.

Continental glaciers are present at 180 ppm. Interglacials are at 280 ppm. That is 100 ppm difference over thousands of years. We have added 120 ppm in the space of less than 150 years.

I guess it is our ( humans' ) fault then by not coming up with the solution to cork up volcanoes.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why only the California cows?

Seriously though, that's the biggest fail of an OP and article I've seen in quite a while.

Sarcasm. California has cow fart regulations.
Cow Fart Regulation Passed Into California Law

Tied to 90 million for them and garbage collectors? Most of SC's dairy farmers moved out of state. They followed Kraft to Idaho. Now they have cow shit there in huge piles along the freeway and lots of residue going into the Aquifer which makes its way to the River.

Then maybe don't have the cow grazing so close to the river.

Along the freeway? Ain't no grass really grows on concrete and asphalt last I knew. They don't have barbed wire there?

The Aquifer spreads underground there several miles wide. Heck INEL is over a 150 miles away but their nuclear trash wound up polluting the river there too.

Yup cow poo piles rows next to the freeway. Its still a pretty remote area. Not a lot of grazing goes along in those type dairy feedlots. They just have small pasture areas for their cows there. I am not sure if they have any regulations on a certain amount of land per cow or not. I doubt they do. I'll ask next time I go out there.

Why would they pile the poo next to the highway? It does make good fertilizer.

A rule of thumb for beef farmers is 1 acre per cow. Do you know how much filtering happens as water seeps down to the aquifer through the ground?

It's pure by the time it gets there.

I think he's referring to a feedlot where they get the cows contained and they fatten em up just before they hit the slaughter house.

 

[RodISHI]

Sarcasm. California has cow fart regulations.
Cow Fart Regulation Passed Into California Law

Tied to 90 million for them and garbage collectors? Most of SC's dairy farmers moved out of state. They followed Kraft to Idaho. Now they have cow shit there in huge piles along the freeway and lots of residue going into the Aquifer which makes its way to the River.

Then maybe don't have the cow grazing so close to the river.

Along the freeway? Ain't no grass really grows on concrete and asphalt last I knew. They don't have barbed wire there?

The Aquifer spreads underground there several miles wide. Heck INEL is over a 150 miles away but their nuclear trash wound up polluting the river there too.

Yup cow poo piles rows next to the freeway. Its still a pretty remote area. Not a lot of grazing goes along in those type dairy feedlots. They just have small pasture areas for their cows there. I am not sure if they have any regulations on a certain amount of land per cow or not. I doubt they do. I'll ask next time I go out there.

Why would they pile the poo next to the highway? It does make good fertilizer.

A rule of thumb for beef farmers is 1 acre per cow. Do you know how much filtering happens as water seeps down to the aquifer through the ground?

It's pure by the time it gets there.

I think he's referring to a feedlot where they get the cows contained and they fatten em up just before they hit the slaughter house.

(she) is talking about feedlots that contain animals from birth to slaughter. The piglets never see what grass is. They are doing the same in some cattle operations now that are trying to feed them from birth to slaughter inside. The large cattle operations raise them from lil' guys to slaughter here too. Why do you think they want to close down open range ranchers? They have big operations in South America and the old style rancher is competition.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Tied to 90 million for them and garbage collectors? Most of SC's dairy farmers moved out of state. They followed Kraft to Idaho. Now they have cow shit there in huge piles along the freeway and lots of residue going into the Aquifer which makes its way to the River.

Then maybe don't have the cow grazing so close to the river.

Along the freeway? Ain't no grass really grows on concrete and asphalt last I knew. They don't have barbed wire there?

The Aquifer spreads underground there several miles wide. Heck INEL is over a 150 miles away but their nuclear trash wound up polluting the river there too.

Yup cow poo piles rows next to the freeway. Its still a pretty remote area. Not a lot of grazing goes along in those type dairy feedlots. They just have small pasture areas for their cows there. I am not sure if they have any regulations on a certain amount of land per cow or not. I doubt they do. I'll ask next time I go out there.

Why would they pile the poo next to the highway? It does make good fertilizer.

A rule of thumb for beef farmers is 1 acre per cow. Do you know how much filtering happens as water seeps down to the aquifer through the ground?

It's pure by the time it gets there.

I think he's referring to a feedlot where they get the cows contained and they fatten em up just before they hit the slaughter house.

(she) is talking about feedlots that contain animals from birth to slaughter. The piglets never see what grass is. They are doing the same in some cattle operations now that are trying to feed them from birth to slaughter inside. The large cattle operations raise them from lil' guys to slaughter here too. Why do you think they want to close down open range ranchers? They have big operations in South America and the old style rancher is competition.

Sorry about that...
I've never heard of cattle being raised this way,it's just not practical.
Pigs and fowl yes.

 

[defcon4]

Tied to 90 million for them and garbage collectors? Most of SC's dairy farmers moved out of state. They followed Kraft to Idaho. Now they have cow shit there in huge piles along the freeway and lots of residue going into the Aquifer which makes its way to the River.

Then maybe don't have the cow grazing so close to the river.

Along the freeway? Ain't no grass really grows on concrete and asphalt last I knew. They don't have barbed wire there?

The Aquifer spreads underground there several miles wide. Heck INEL is over a 150 miles away but their nuclear trash wound up polluting the river there too.

Yup cow poo piles rows next to the freeway. Its still a pretty remote area. Not a lot of grazing goes along in those type dairy feedlots. They just have small pasture areas for their cows there. I am not sure if they have any regulations on a certain amount of land per cow or not. I doubt they do. I'll ask next time I go out there.

Why would they pile the poo next to the highway? It does make good fertilizer.

A rule of thumb for beef farmers is 1 acre per cow. Do you know how much filtering happens as water seeps down to the aquifer through the ground?

It's pure by the time it gets there.

I think he's referring to a feedlot where they get the cows contained and they fatten em up just before they hit the slaughter house.

(she) is talking about feedlots that contain animals from birth to slaughter. The piglets never see what grass is. They are doing the same in some cattle operations now that are trying to feed them from birth to slaughter inside. The large cattle operations raise them from lil' guys to slaughter here too. Why do you think they want to close down open range ranchers? They have big operations in South America and the old style rancher is competition.

Times back when, steers were fed mostly grains in closed environment for three months before slaughter to achieve "USDA Prime Grade" marbling.

 

[PredFan]

“Climate Change in Your Face” — Great Barrier Reef Suffers Second Consecutive Mass Bleaching as Potential for Record Warm 2017 Looms

On March 2nd, 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was already starting to show signs of bleaching. After suffering a worst-ever coral bleaching event in 2016, concerns were high that warmer waters could again strike the reef — spurring a second consecutive mass die-off. Even worse, some scientists were concerned that 2017’s bleaching could exceed the intensity of the record 2016 event.

Now it appears that just such a catastrophe is underway. And scientists expect about 2/3 of the world’s largest reef to experience bleaching over the next couple of months.

Wow, that is a large percentage of the lower food chain....Playing with fire we're.

How ripe are those cherries you are picking?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Then maybe don't have the cow grazing so close to the river.

Along the freeway? Ain't no grass really grows on concrete and asphalt last I knew. They don't have barbed wire there?

The Aquifer spreads underground there several miles wide. Heck INEL is over a 150 miles away but their nuclear trash wound up polluting the river there too.

Yup cow poo piles rows next to the freeway. Its still a pretty remote area. Not a lot of grazing goes along in those type dairy feedlots. They just have small pasture areas for their cows there. I am not sure if they have any regulations on a certain amount of land per cow or not. I doubt they do. I'll ask next time I go out there.

Why would they pile the poo next to the highway? It does make good fertilizer.

A rule of thumb for beef farmers is 1 acre per cow. Do you know how much filtering happens as water seeps down to the aquifer through the ground?

It's pure by the time it gets there.

I think he's referring to a feedlot where they get the cows contained and they fatten em up just before they hit the slaughter house.

(she) is talking about feedlots that contain animals from birth to slaughter. The piglets never see what grass is. They are doing the same in some cattle operations now that are trying to feed them from birth to slaughter inside. The large cattle operations raise them from lil' guys to slaughter here too. Why do you think they want to close down open range ranchers? They have big operations in South America and the old style rancher is competition.

Times back when, steers were fed mostly grains in closed environment for three months before slaughter to achieve "USDA Prime Grade" marbling.

Yep,their stay may be anywhere from a month to three months.
And the price and quality of your beef will reflect that.