• CON

    Meat industry sources object to the methodology used in...

    Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

    Kind regards, no, I don't forfeit rounds, I'm just a little busy at the moment due to University. Final Round: First of all I would like to address my previous statement regarding the FAO report. While it most certainly provides evidence, it also is contradicted by many different sources. However, if my statement is read again, it clearly states that 'they', and not it, is to be trusted, meaning the other reports or apparent evidence used by 'Cowspiracy'. As for Pro's statement that "Again you assert wri.org is more trust worthy without proving it. Basically Con is stating that the World resource institute WRI is more reputable than the FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.", no, that is not what I am saying. Also, if you want to play the 'prove game', prove that your sources are trustworthy. That will bring us nowhere. The point to be addressed is that the FAO report, while the full report is seemingly not accessible, parts of it are, includes many sources of data potentially unrelated to to factory farming, such as deforestation and cropping. "Meat industry sources object to the methodology used in the UN report, notably that deforestation for livestock was included in the calculations. These sources point out that pasture-grass-feeding, such as is common in New Zealand, may lead to lower emissions attributable to livestock, despite the fact that methane and nitrous oxide from livestock make up half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions." (wikipedia) (http://maxa.maf.govt.nz...) As well as above, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (quoted from Wikipedia) found "In 2006, emissions sources contained within the Agricultural Chapters were responsible for emissions of … 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions." (currently being around 9%, as stated in round one, but unchallenged by Pro) (http://www3.epa.gov...). This, as stated in round one, is evidence for the U.S., a country with, as stated in the previous round, 99% animals being raised under 'factory farming' setting. This would mean that the U.S. could be taken as an example, meaning that, as in the U.S.'s case, factory farming being 99% of farming, yet only producing 9% of Greenhouse gases, which, by the way, is less than the U.S.'s transport emission, that factory farming by no means is the number one cause of man made global climate change. Besides, I would like to point to round one, where factory farming was clearly defined, with no objection of Pro, as "a system of rearing livestock using highly intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions.". This means that all of Pro's attempt to define all farming as 'factory farming' are non applicable. Otherwise we could define cattle, such as raised in Australia or huge parts of South America, which by all means can go wherever they want to on properties which are thousands of square kilometres large, as factory farming, because they are still under human control when mustered or 'belong' to humans.. Absolute nonsense. Factory farming is, as stated in round one already, animals being raised indoors, normally in small pens, in an attempt to decrease labour input and maximise output. Also, according to Pro, as the burning of the Amazon rainforest apparently should be counted as 'factory farming', practices such as slash and burn clearing of land for plantations are apparently factory farming as well. It is also to note that Pro has not submitted any facts supporting their thesis that 'factory farming' is the number one cause of man-made global climate change, other than the 18% number, that farming, as factory farming has not even been implicated, other than in the weak reasoning of an attempt to make all farming practices, seemingly plant production included, into factory farming. Conclusion: While Pro has neither provided a valid definition of 'Factory Farming', nor actually provided any evidence that factory farming actually is the number 1 cause of man made global climate change, Con has provided evidence against this. ' The most important factor in this debate is that Pro did not provide a link between the only evidence between the only applicable source used, the FAO report of 2006, which states that livestock creates 18% of Greenhouse gasses, however, Pro does not provide what amount of these 18% is actually 'Factory Farmed'. This means, that possibly the number of Greenhouse gases produced by non factory farmed animals, remembering that factory farming, as stated in round 2, makes up around 40% of livestock numbers. Using logical reasoning, this would mean that non factory farmed animals produce more Greenhouse gases than factory farmed ones by sheer number, also taking into consideration that in a free range farming environment more resources become wasted when compared to factory farming, possibly creating more emissions. Furthermore it needs to be considered that according to many other sources, as supplied by Con, agriculture does, potentially, make up 18% of emissions as the FAO report includes some controversial factors. Pro's inclusion of the Amazon rainforest example cannot be seen as evidence, as in no way does the Greenpeace source provided, as bias as it is, provide a link to 'factory farming'. In fact, all the images Greenpeace has provided display animals freely roaming smoke filled ground resulting in slash and burn, hardly being factory farming, other than some images of animals being drafted, which, once again, is a result of the opposite of factory farming. Factory Farmed animals do not have to be drafted and mustered. The source Pro provided about 51% of emissions created by livestock was already rebutted in round 2 and the comments, as the authors of the source are incapable of conducting simple mathematical calculations. Thus, finally, as Pro has not provided any convincing evidence, or in fact any evidence at all, that factory farming is the number one source of man made global climate change, I, Con, will have to remain with my conclusion posted in round one, that Factory Farming is not the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards for the Debate, thanks to all Readers and Voters, have a nice day!