Trump warnings grow from forgotten Republicans

Yahoo News

Trump warnings grow from forgotten Republicans

Steve Peoples, Associated Press        August 18, 2018 

In this Dec. 8, 2017, file photo, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty speaks after a Chamber of Commerce breakfast in St. Louis Park, Minn. The ranks of the forgotten Republicans are growing. They are members of Congress, governors and state party leaders who have been left behind by President Donald Trump’s Republican Party. Some, like former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, were forced out. (AP Photo/Steve Karnowski, File)

NEW YORK (AP) — The ranks of forgotten Republicans are growing.

Some were forced out, such as Tim Pawlenty, a former two-term Minnesota governor who lost this week’s bid for a political comeback. Some, such as the retiring Republican Sen. Bob Corker, chose to leave on their own. Others still serve, but with a muted voice.

Whether members of Congress, governors or state party leaders, they are struggling to fit into President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.

The expanding list of marginalized GOP leaders underscores how thoroughly Trump has dominated — and changed — the Republican Party in the nearly two years since he seized the presidency. The overwhelming majority of elected officials, candidates and rank-and-file voters now follow the president with extraordinary loyalty, even if he strays far from the values and traditions many know and love.

The Republicans left behind are warning their party with increasing urgency, though it’s unclear whether anyone’s listening.

“I hope this is a very temporary place for the Republican Party,” said Corker. “I hope that very soon we will return to our roots as a party that’s very different, especially in tone, from what we’ve seen coming out of the White House.”

The forgotten Republicans — people like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — have been unwilling to sit quietly as Trump steers the GOP away from free trade, fiscal responsibility, consistent foreign policy and civility.

Isolation and political exile have been their rewards.

Their diminished roles leave fewer Republican leaders willing to challenge Trump under any circumstances, even in his darkest moments.

Fact checkers have recorded an extraordinary level of false and misleading statements flowing out of the White House. And beyond dishonesty, some of the forgotten have decried a disturbing pattern of racially charged rhetoric on issues like immigration, NFL anthem protests and Confederate monuments.

“White nationalism isn’t something I’m ever going to be comfortable with. But it is embraced by, or simply doesn’t bother, a lot of Republicans,” said former Ohio Republican Party chairman Matt Borges, once a Trump confidant who was forced from his leadership post after criticizing Trump in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election.

After Trump’s victory, Borges returned to practicing law, while he continues to play a modest role in local politics.

“To me, it became a matter of how much of your soul are you willing to sell. I would be the wrong person to be leading this party right now,” Borges said.

Trump remains popular among rank-and-file Republicans. And the vast majority of Republican candidates across the country this midterm season are pledging unconditional loyalty — and being rewarded with primary victories.

Gallup found that 82 percent of Republicans approved of the president’s job performance earlier this month. That’s compared to just 34 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats.

Kasich, who has not ruled out a primary bid against Trump in 2020, said the president’s approval is misleading because the universe of people identifying as Republican is shrinking.

“We’re dealing with a remnant of the Republican Party. The party is not what it was,” Kasich said in an interview.

The term-limited governor said he’s content to focus quietly on addressing issues like the opioid epidemic and urban violence on a bipartisan basis while the Trump-led GOP focuses on partisan squabbling.

“Let those in the Republican Party who want to be ideological and partisan, let them wallow in their own failures,” said Kasich.

Other GOP leaders aren’t feeling quite so emboldened.

Pawlenty’s quest for a third term collapsed after Republican primary voters determined his experience — and his years-old description of Trump as “unfit and unhinged” — weren’t welcome.

Pawlenty politely declined to be interviewed, but a former aide, Alex Conant, said this week’s result, like those of other primary elections this year, sent a clear message about the modern GOP.

“There’s not a lot of room for dissent in the Republican Party right now,” Conant said. “Moderates don’t feel welcome. And if you’re not loyal to Trump, there’s not necessarily room for you.”

The details may be different, but Pawlenty’s unexpected exit is reminiscent of that of other public officials who have struggled to find their footing in the Trump era.

Bush, another Trump critic, declined to comment for this story. He has been forced into silence, at least in part, for fear of hurting his son’s political career. In June, Donald Trump Jr. withdrew from a fundraiser for Texas land commissioner George P. Bush after Jeb Bush criticized the president’s policy of separating immigrant children from their families at the border.

Another periodic Trump critic, former House Speaker John Boehner, is in the midst of a 20-stop bus tour to help raise money for vulnerable House Republicans.

Just don’t ask whom he’s raising money for.

Spokesman David Schnittger said it was up to each of the campaigns involved to disclose Boehner’s help. “I’m not sure anyone has exercised that option to date,” he said.

Boehner’s successor, Paul Ryan, has seen his once sky-high career prospects flounder in the Trump era. The 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee has occasionally criticized Trump, but he is retiring at the end of the year.

In South Carolina, Republican Rep. Mark Sanford narrowly lost his June primary hours after Trump tweeted he had been “very unhelpful” and highlighted the congressman’s extramarital affair.

Days later, Sanford described Trumpism as “a cancerous growth.” As he prepares to leave Congress, he’s warning the GOP the cancer is spreading.

“We have a president that will tell numerous dis-truths in the course of a day, yet that’s not challenged,” Sanford said in an interview. “What’s cancerous here is in an open political system, there has to be some measure of objective truth.”

“I’m baffled by the way so many people have looked the other way,” he said.

Asked whether he feels like he fits in today’s GOP, Sanford said simply, “No.”

Back in Ohio, Borges vowed that his departure from politics was only temporary.

“The Trump phenomenon is going to end at some point in time. That might be six years, that might be two years, that might be sooner. No one knows,” the former Ohio GOP chairman said. “When it does end, it’s the job of a lot of us … to make sure that the party is still populated by good, honest, decent candidates and officeholders who we can continue to be proud of.”

AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report.

Fracking is destroying U.S. water supply, warns shocking new study

ThinkProgress

Fracking is destroying U.S. water supply, warns shocking new study

Toxic wastewater from fracking jumps 14-fold from 2011 to 2016 — and it may get 50 times bigger by 2030.

By Joe Romm     August 17, 2018

THE MONTEREY SHALE FORMATION IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE FRACKING IS USED TO EXTRACT GAS AND OIL DURING ONE OF THE WORST DROUGHTS IN STATE HISTORY, MARCH 2014. CREDIT: DAVID MCNEW/GETTY IMAGES

An alarming new study reveals fracking is quite simply destroying America’s water supply.

That means we are losing potable water forever in many semi-arid regions of the country, while simultaneously producing more carbon pollution that in turn is driving ever-worsening droughts in those same regions, as fracking expert Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University, explained to ThinkProgress.

The game-changing study from Duke University found that “from 2011 to 2016, the water use per well increased up to 770 percent.” In addition, the toxic wastewater produced in the first year of production jumped up to 1440 percent.

Previous studies suggested hydraulic fracturing does not use significantly more water than other energy sources, but those findings were based only on aggregated data from the early years of fracking,” explained co-author Avner Vengosh, a professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke.

“After more than a decade of fracking operation, we now have more years of data to draw upon from multiple verifiable sources,” said Vengosh. The researchers looked at data on water used — and oil, gas, and wastewater produced — for over 12,000 wells from 2011 to 2016.

Fracking Is Already Straining U.S. Water Supplies

Ingraffea, who was not involved in the study, explained that while first generation wells used 3 to 5 millions gallons of water, current third generation wells use 10 to 30 million gallons. Ingraffea — who worked with the fossil fuel industry for three decades and has been co-editor-in-chief of the journal Engineering Fracture Mechanics since 2005 — noted that the federal government “forecasts a million more such wells in the next 20 years.”

That would mean trillions of gallons of water used.

The Duke study warns that the water footprint of fracking could jump as much as 50-fold in some areas by 2030, “raising concerns about its sustainability, particularly in arid or semi-arid regions in western states, or other areas where groundwater supplies are stressed.”

As their analysis shows, some of the fracking sites that are seeing the biggest jump in water footprint per well — like the Permian and Eagle Ford Basins — are also located in highly water-stressed areas (see chart below).

SOME OF THE BIGGEST FRACKING SITES — LIKE THE PERMIAN AND EAGLE FORD BASINS — ARE IN HIGHLY WATER STRESSED AREAS. CREDIT: DUKE UNIVERSITY.

One key point the study makes is that, unlike other energy sources, much of the water fracking uses is essentially lost to humanity. Either the water doesn’t escape the shale formation or, when it does come back to the surface, it “is highly saline, is difficult to treat, and is often disposed through deep injection wells.”

Therefore, even though other forms of energy have a higher intensity of water use, “the permanent loss of water use for hydraulic fracturing from the hydrosphere” may still be higher.

The study also points out that the world has seen “rapidly diminishing global water resources due to population growth and climate change.”

Yet countless studies show that because the fracking process leaks so much methane —  a highly potent greenhouse gas — fracked gas isn’t a climate solution. In fact, “natural gas could warm the planet as much as coal in the short term,” one major 24-author study from June concluded. So those who continue touting fracked gas as a bridge to a low-carbon future are not keeping up with the latest science.

The argument for fracking as a climate solution just went down in flames

And so we have the tragic situation where we are using up one of our most precious non-renewable resources, water, to produce oil and gas, which worsens the stress on our water system.

As Ingraffea put it, “shale gas/oil is exchanging absurd volumes of water for absurd volumes of fossil fuels at a time where using the latter is jeopardizing the availability of the former.” At the same time, fracking “is exchanging precious volumes of water usable for drinking and farming for toxic volumes of wastewater most of which has to be transported and injected underground,” at grave risk to underground sources of drinking water. Finally, “most of what is not transported and injected stays underground, an exchange of H2O for CO2.” Therefore, almost all of what arrives at a well is forever lost to the water cycle.”

Fracking is truly a Faustian bargain.

Cheers to Whoever Just Saved Us $92 Million on Trump’s Farce of a Parade

Esquire

Cheers to Whoever Just Saved Us $92 Million on Trump’s Farce of a Parade

Helping to shut down the president*’s ode to himself is truly a patriotic endeavor.

By Charles P. Pierce      August 17, 2018

Nicholas Kamm

Somewhere in that five-sided mystery cabinet along the Potomac is a genuine American hero. We may never know this person’s name, but this person did the country a great service, in addition to making El Caudillo Del Mar-A-Lago an occasion for further mockery, which is always a worthwhile patriotic endeavor. Sometime on Wednesday night, this person—or persons—got in touch with Amanda Macias of CNBC, and this is what Macias was told:

“The Department of Defense and its interagency partners have updated their prospective cost estimates for the parade, according to a U.S. defense official with firsthand knowledge of the assessment. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity. The parade, originally slated for Nov. 10 but now potentially set for 2019, is estimated to cost $92 million, the official said. The figure consists of $50 million from the Pentagon and $42 million from interagency partners such as the Department of Homeland Security. An initial estimate last month pegged the prospective cost for the parade at $12 million.”

The whole idea of this parade was a farce from the start, but it was a farce to which much of official Washington seemed resigned to suffer; a costly two-hour demonstration of armed presidential* onanism is no way to spend an holiday afternoon, but it looked like it was going to happen anyway. Then the real price of the impending wank-a-thon was leaked and, within an hour, the White House had yet another PR catastrophe on its hands. What happened next was inevitable. From Reuters:

“We originally targeted November 10, 2018 for this event but have now agreed to explore opportunities in 2019,” Defense Department Spokesman Colonel Rob Manning said in a statement. A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was unclear exactly what caused the postponement but the increased cost of the event had caused concern and could be one reason. The parade to honor U.S. military veterans and commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War One could cost more than $90 million, the U.S. official said, citing provisional planning figures that were nearly three times an earlier White House estimate.”

Reaction from the president* was not long in coming, and it was every bit as petty, incoherent, and untruthful as you can expect from someone who doesn’t know anything about anything and who lies about it anyway.

Donald J. Trump: The local politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly) know a windfall when they see it. When asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that I cancelled it. Never let someone hold you up! I will instead…

….attend the big parade already scheduled at Andrews Air Force Base on a different date, & go to the Paris parade, celebrating the end of the War, on November 11th. Maybe we will do something next year in D.C. when the cost comes WAY DOWN. Now we can buy some more jet fighters!

Zoom!

While D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser had been pushing back against this grandiose monstrosity almost from the moment it was proposed, it was that anonymous Pentagon spokesperson who blew the whistle the loudest. A grateful nation sends its thanks.

RELATED STORY

Newspapers Have Faced Down Worse Than This Clown

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

Healthy Soil is Ground Zero for Environmental Justice in Farm Communities

Healthy Soil is Ground Zero for Environmental Justice in Farm Communities

Protecting the health and diversity of soil microbes in California’s Central Valley is also the first step to protecting the health and diversity of the region’s inhabitants.

Janaki Jagannath, Agroecology, Food Justice, Pesticides – August 17, 2018

Migrant workers harvesting sweet potatoes in Mechanicsville, Va. (Photo credit: USDA)

In California’s San Joaquin Valley—home to many of the nation’s largest fruit, nut, and vegetable operations—agricultural soils have been sterilized and depleted of natural fertility. This trend in agricultural soil management is standard practice for industrial farming, and while it’s still possible to turn the trend around and begin managing soils to improve the health of the region, doing so requires an examination of the history of environmental justice (and injustice) in California.

In 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, a set of policies that required federal agencies to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the environmental impacts of the development, implementation, and enforcement of federal programs and policies.

Among other state programs and policies that have been advocated for and created by environmentally burdened communities of color, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has released CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool depicting communities that are affected by cumulative environmental impacts such as groundwater pollution, ozone, particulate matter, pesticide exposure, and other toxic pollution. Under Senate Bill 535, California directs 25 percent of the proceeds from its cap and trade program to climate investment funding in the state’s most affected areas.

May Young Vu a Hmong farmer harvesting cherry tomatoes on her farm May's Flower's in Sanger, California. (Photo credit: USDA)

May Young Vu, a Hmong farmer, harvesting cherry tomatoes on her farm May’s Flower’s in Sanger, California. (Photo credit: USDA)

These communities suffer the problems that arise from historic land-use policy in California, which has essentially been created by and for large agribusiness, and rarely prioritizes soil health or community health. Rather than building carbon and organic matter, the soil has been stripped of most of its life, and nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen get added back in through synthetic fertilizers.

As a result, over 1 million California residents are exposed every year to water that is unsafe to drink by state standards. In addition, many communities lack adequate wastewater infrastructure, housing, and perhaps the most importantly, a lack of governance. Many environmental justice communities were settled during the migration that took place when the Dust Bowl arose from Midwestern agriculture practices that pushed the land to its limit. A period of dramatic expansion of the fruit and specialty crop economy in California led thousands of migrants from across the country to move to California as field workers and packers.

During World War II, and with the implementation of the Bracero program, Mexican farmworkers and other communities of color moved into and continued to build these small California communities. They dug their wells by hand, and if electrification took place it was often done without proper oversight. The land-use policies in these communities were historically discriminatory, and in the decades since, larger municipalities haven’t annexed them to provide basic protections for their drinking water and air quality. These rural, unincorporated communities face a lack of local governance and some of the most acute environmental and climate impacts in the state.

Migrant workers harvesting sweet potatoes in Mechanicsville, VA, on Sep. 20, 2013. (Photo credit: USDA)

Migrant workers harvesting sweet potatoes in Mechanicsville, VA. (Photo credit: USDA)

In unincorporated farmworker communities, residents deal directly with the harmful impacts of agriculture. Parents send their kids to school knowing they’re going to get exposed to pesticide drift. They are dealing with chronic disease, asthma, valley fever—a deadly infection caused by a fungus found in soil—on a regular basis.

Drinking water in the San Joaquin Valley primarily comes from groundwater wells. The area’s groundwater is often contaminated with nitrates, selenium, arsenic, and 123-TCP—a carcinogenic chemical that was recently regulated for the first time. These water contaminants are byproducts of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, or simply the products themselves, washed into the aquifer. This is a direct result of the way the soil in the area has been treated over time by chemical-heavy farming practices.

Crops in the region are mainly irrigated with surface water. The agriculture industry is constantly lobbying for access to more surface water because groundwater is expensive to pump and often contains large quantities of salt, which is the primary concern for farmers.

Meanwhile, 95 percent of the water going to people’s homes is ground water.

There has also been an enormous loss of native vegetation in the San Joaquin Valley because the agriculture industry has removed most of what was left of the native plants, animals, and people. We have lost nearly all ecological memory of the area to privatized industrial scale agricultural landholding.

A few important examples of alternative agriculture stand out. In Tulare County, an area known for its conservative approach to large-scale agriculture, Steven Lee of Quaker Oaks Farm is working to educate the local community on the importance of building soil carbon as a foundation to achieve environmental justice priorities. A recent recipient of funding through the Healthy Soils Initiative, Lee is planning to pilot a number of soil improvement practices on his land and gauge their ecological benefits. Quaker Oaks Farm shares historic ground with the Wukchumni Indian tribe of the region, and also with farmworking families of Oaxacan origin who use a portion of the land for subsistence farming.

Janaki Jagannath. (Photo credit: Jan Mangan)

Janaki Jagannath. (Photo credit: Jan Mangan)

Community Alliance for Agroecology has built a framework based on ecology that prioritizes the protection of the water and air in addition to building political power because we believe the historically underserved communities who have built our agricultural economy should have a say in how agriculture moves forward in the state. Healthy soil brings both short- and long-term benefits by protecting our waterways, our local air quality, and displacing chemical fertilizers and pesticides if built as a part of a natural soil fertility regimen.

We are at a point in California history where we need to be linking arms around soil protection. We have a state water board, and a state pesticide department, but we don’t have any direct oversight of our soils at the state level; soil health has been largely left to the discretion of private landowners.

Soil is the basis of our food system and we need to protect it—especially in areas like the San Joaquin Valley. To do that right, we must also include the voices of rural people of color and others who have been historically left out of the decision-making process around farming and land ownership.

A version of this article was originally published by Bioneers as part of their series on carbon farming.

Aretha Franklin’s Most Unforgettable Vocal Performances

Esquire

Aretha Franklin’s Most Unforgettable Vocal Performances

Her voice inspired social change and brought world leaders to tears.

By Justin Kirkland       August 16, 2018

Aretha Franklin performs at the Lincoln Memorial

Mark Reinstein

Aretha Franklin is impossible to define. In a time when everything is iconic and stunning and must-see, none of those words seem to do her justice because Franklin’s legacy transcends vocabulary words. Instead, maybe the best way to remember her is simply by listening to the stories she’s already told us. Over the course of seven decades, Aretha Franklin’s voice has had the power to bring world leaders to tears, to fuel the Civil Rights movement, and change the very fabric of music. Franklin, The Queen of Soul, died on Thursday at the age of 76. These are her performances that will remain among the greatest in history.

“AMAZING GRACE,” NEW TEMPLE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, 1972

Franklin’s voice transcended religion. As an artist, she contributed to the secularization of gospel music—echoes of which are still heard today on pop and hip-hop radio. Her performance of “Amazing Grace” went on to sell over two million copies, becoming the highest selling gospel album of all time. But this performance? Even if you don’t believe in a higher power, after listening to Aretha work her way through the hymn, you’d be hard pressed not to wonder if she has some kind of connection up there.

“(YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A) NATURAL WOMAN,” KENNEDY CENTER HONORS, 2015

After receiving her own Kennedy Center Honor 21 years before, the Queen of Soul returned to the stage to honor Carole King, the writer of one of her most recognizable hits. King immediately leapt to her feet as Aretha started the song. By the time the song ended, Franklin had shed her fur coat, President Obama was wiping tears, and every person in the place was on their feet.

“NESSUN DORMA,” GRAMMY AWARDS, 1998

After legendary opera singer Luciano Pavarotti had to pull out of the 40th annual Grammy Awards following throat problems, the Grammys had to make a quick move. Two hours before the performance, Aretha stepped up to the challenge. What resulted was a performance for the ages. Moving back and forth between Italian and English, Aretha’s soul-infused rendition of the aria from the opera Turnadot was one of the most surprising moments in Grammy, and music, history.

“PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND,”HER FATHER’S FUNERAL, 1984

Having originally released the song in 1956, “Precious Lord” had a long history in Aretha’s life. Her mentor, Mahalia Jackson, sang it at Martin Luther King, Jr’s funeral. Four years later, Franklin would sing it at Jackson’s, as well as the dedication of the MLK memorial in Washington D.C.

“MY COUNTRY ‘TIS OF THEE,” BARACK OBAMA’S INAUGURATION, 2009

For President Obama’s first inauguration, his choice to have Aretha sing “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” was a powerful moment in American history. Here was one of the greatest singers in history—one who’s made great strides for women and people of color—singing at the inauguration of the first black president. No matter what comes next, her performance of the patriotic 1831 song will remain a proud moment in this country’s history.

“I DREAMED A DREAM,” BILL CLINTON’S INAUGURATION GALA, 1994

President Obama wasn’t the first Commander in Chief with the good idea to pull in the talents of Aretha Franklin. The Les Misérables showstopper is admittedly a strange choice for a presidential inauguration, but if anyone has the ability to make it work, it’s Aretha Franklin. The giant Broadway number grows even bigger with her raspy voice and soulful infusion, ending in yet another standing ovation.

“(I CAN’T GET NO) SATISFACTION,” AMSTERDAM, 1968

A voice like this can do any genre. And as the first woman inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, she absolutely covered rock music, too. Her cover of The Rolling Stones’ “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction,” highlights the blues roots of the hit, connecting it to the origins of rock music and Franklin’s own training as a gospel musician.

“SAY A LITTLE PRAYER,” ‘THIS IS TOM JONES,’ 1970

Recorded a year before by Dionne Warwick, Aretha revamped Burt Bacharach and Hal David’s “Say a Little Prayer” with a burst of energy that set it apart from the original recording. As a guest on This Is Tom Jones, she performed the song effortlessly, cementing it as another single in a long list of successes.

“RESPECT,” ANTIBES, FRANCE, 1967

If Aretha Franklin had to be summed up into one song, there’s a pretty good chance it would be “Respect.” While recorded versions and later live performances were a bit slower, the original live performances turned “Respect” up several notches. This performance came right as Aretha’s career was hitting meteoric status. The breakdown after the bridge is just one example of why Aretha is and always will be a live performance master.

“BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER,” LIVE AT THE FILLMORE WEST, 1971

Choosing a favorite performance from her concert at Fillmore West is nearly impossible. But alongside covers of “You’re All I Need To Get By” and “Eleanor Rigby,” it always comes back to the most-soul driven performance of the bunch. Taking to the piano and slowing the song down a bit to really tear into those big notes, Aretha’s performance of the Simon & Garfunkel classic is proof that even the most well-known songs can benefit from the gift that is Aretha’s voice.

Scientists seek new ways to combat Florida’s growing ‘red tide’

Reuters

Scientists seek new ways to combat Florida’s growing ‘red tide’

By Steve Gorman,    Reuters        August 16, 2018

Can Aquaculture Survive Without Forage Fish?

Civil Eats

Can Aquaculture Survive Without Forage Fish?

Humans eat huge amounts of farmed fish. Farmed fish eat huge amounts of smaller fish. A new study explores this unsustainable cycle, and offers a path forward.

By Meg Wilcox, Environment, Farming, Seafood    August 16, 2018

 

Aquaculture is booming. Today, worldwide, we consume more farmed fish than wild-caught species. Think about it: How often do shoppers buy the more expensive wild-caught salmon over the farm-raised, and how often do they even get that choice?

This global trend is taking a toll on the wild fish populations that are harvested to feed farmed fish. A new study in Nature Sustainability shows that, by 2037, aquaculture demands could outstrip supply of so-called forage fish, or fish like anchovies and menhaden, which are often deemed too small for humans to eat. Although they’re rarely considered by most consumers, these species do feed the fish we eat (and livestock—pigs and poultry are large consumers of fish-based feeds), making them a vital link in marine ecosystems.

Despite the study’s dire conclusion, there is hope, say the authors. Feed reforms could allow for aquaculture’s continued growth as a source of critical protein on a hungry planet, while sustaining the forage species.

“Aquaculture is now the primary user of forage fish,” says lead author Halley Froehlich, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “But we wanted to step back and look at other sectors in the food industry, like pigs and poultry, to get some perspective on how these fish are being used, and what are the actual tangible mitigating measures that could avoid surpassing supply.”

A school of menhaden. (Photo CC-licensed by Icewall42)

A school of menhaden. (Photo CC-licensed by Icewall42)

Froehlich’s research was motivated, she says, by the bad rap aquaculture gets in marine conservation circles when it comes to forage fish use. The aquaculture industry faces additional challenges to operating in a long-term sustainable way, including concerns about antibiotics use and pollution, but Froehlich said she hoped to spur conversations about the measures that could be taken to, at least, improve the sustainability of aquaculture feed. Call it “ocean optimism.”

A Big Market for Small Fish

Forage fish account for a whopping one-third of the seafood caught globally. These tiny wonders feed on plankton, the original source of nutrient-rich omega-3 fatty acids, bio-accumulating that nutrient and serving as a protein source for the vast marine food chain.

Today, humans eat only about 5 percent of the forage fish we catch, in products such as canned sardines, anchovies, or fish oil pills. That number is down from the 15 percent globally we ate in 2000, partially due to the rise of aquaculture, which has made popular seafood such as salmon and shrimp more affordable for more people.

The vast majority of forage fish gets ground into fishmeal and oil that are used to feed farmed seafood and land-based livestock. Aquaculture currently uses about 70 percent of the fish meal that’s produced globally. Up until the 2000s, however, the poultry and hog industries were the largest users of fish meal.

Aquaculture’s fast growth—from some 15 million tons produced in 1990 to 80 million in 2016—has caused the price of fish meal to rise, and poultry and hog producers have begun to substitute it with cheaper protein sources like soy. But they still use 25 percent of fish meal globally.

Economics are also driving the aquaculture industry to search for alternative feeds. “Ten years ago, when fish meal was inexpensive, it made up a large part of the diet. It was a perfect blend of the fishes’ nutrient needs. But now, you’re seeing diets that are blended from plant-based protein like soy, corn, canola, and pea proteins, and the percentage of fish meal is going down,” says Michael Rust, science advisor to NOAA’s Aquaculture Program, who was not involved in the study.

A land-based aquaculture pen. (Photo CC-licensed by Bytemarks)

A land-based aquaculture pen. (Photo CC-licensed by Bytemarks)

Wheat and soy are the largest ingredient in fish feed today, according to Froehlich. Other shifts are occurring as well. The trimmings, (e.g., heads, tails, guts), from fish landed for human consumption are becoming an increasingly larger proportion of the fish meal fed to farmed fish, says Rust, who is optimistic that the market can help find creative ways to keep aquaculture growing. “The bottom line is that there are solutions,” he says.

Around two-thirds of fish meal now includes trimmings, says Rust, who cites the Norwegian salmon industry, where the vast majority of the byproducts from the salmon go back into the fishmeal. “If you get to the point where your diet only contains 5 to 10 percent fish meal, that fish actually create all the fishmeal it needs for the next generation through trimmings,” he says.

Froehlich’s research findings suggest that less fish byproducts are actually going into fishmeal worldwide. “China is a big question mark,” she says, because data were not available for its use of byproducts in fish meal.

While Froehlich agrees that economics are driving down the use of forage fish in aquaculture feed, her model projects that, without rapid transition to more sustainable feed alternatives, the ecological limits of these small silvery fish could be surpassed in less than 20 years.

Moreover, factors such as climate change could impact wild-caught fish population dynamics in ways that no one can predict. And conservation-based catch limits for forage fish could be tightened to leave more prey in the water for larger species, leaving less for aquaculture. Then there’s the omega-3 consumer craze, and the ever-growing preference for healthier, fish-based diets, not to mention the 2 billion more people who are projected to live on the planet by mid-century.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty about the future,” says Froehlich. “Let’s capture that uncertainty, which our model tries to do, [and use it to help us] make better, conscious, adaptive decisions across different sectors.”

Modeling different scenarios, Froehlich says her research found that forage fish populations could survive longer if we stop feeding them to “the things that don’t necessarily require it, like carp,” and that applies to poultry and pigs as well.

Fishing for Alternatives

Feeding less fishmeal to carp and other fishes that are not carnivorous turns out to be the single best way to ensure the long-term sustainability of forage fish, according to Froelich’s research. Carp is the top farm-raised fish and is mostly cultivated in Southeast Asia. While carp feed typically contains a tiny fraction of fishmeal, the sheer volume of the fish that is produced makes it the single largest user of forage fish in the aquaculture industry.

Some companies are innovating alternative feeds for carp, spurred in part by the Future of Fish Feed (F3), a collaborative global effort among NGOs, researchers, and companies that holds worldwide competitions to innovate seafood-free feeds. Chinese company Guangdong Evergreen Feed Industry Co. won the first challenge last year, and earned $200,000 by becoming the first company to produce and sell 100,000 metric tons of seafood-free feed.

Such feeds can include ingredients like fly larvaealgae, and bacteria and yeasts. Single-celled bacteria and yeasts can also be easier for fish to digest than soy-based feeds, according to Michael Tlusty, an associate professor of Sustainability and Food Solutions at the University of Massachusetts Boston, and one of the challenge’s judges.

F3 is in the midst of a new challenge to spur production of an alternative oil, not made from fish, that is rich with omega-3 fatty acids, an essential ingredient in fishes’ diets. Oils will globally be the more limiting factor in developing alternative feeds, according to Tlusty. Some of these alternatives may involve genetic modification of yeasts or bacteria, which are also a cause for concern among some advocates and consumers who want to avoid GMO products and byproducts.

While innovative new feeds are starting to come on line, Tlusty says, “we can do these things in small batches. But how do you scale them up and out into an industry that doesn’t have a lot of money for expensive solutions?”

An aquaculture pen off the coast of Maine. (Photo by NOAA

An aquaculture pen off the coast of Maine. (Photo by NOAA

Beyond changing what carp eat, the second-best solution researchers found was to stop feeding fishmeal to piglets. Froehlich says, “it doesn’t look like there’s any big push in the pig or poultry sector to reduce fishmeal other than the cost factor.” But she thinks that feed companies, such as Cargill, could be a good leverage point for making this shift.

Another proposed solution is to eliminate farmed fish entirely, with some advocating for eating forage fish directly, and recent research estimating that 90 percent could be directly eaten by humans. That alone is not a viable solution, however, say the study’s authors. In addition to the significant hurdle of changing consumers’ fish-eating habits, the authors point out that much of the current use of forage fish is driven by policies and processes that favor reducing these fish to meal and oil.

Rust agrees, noting, “A lot of forage fish are frankly not very good to eat. Menhaden, which is the primary fishmeal stock we harvest in the U.S., is horrible. That would only get us so far and would eventually become limiting as well.”

While the solutions explored by the researchers begin to address one of the challenges that aquaculture faces, there are a number of long-standing concerns that policymakers and environmental groups continue to raise about the sustainability of the industry. In addition to the potential use of genetically modified yeast as a food source, aquaculture—if done poorly—can be highly reliant on antibiotics and generate significant pollution, leading at least one group to dub the practice “factory fish farming.”

The aquaculture industry will have to find solutions for these challenges as well, if it is to continue on its current growth trajectory, and serve as a sustainable food option on a finite planet with a fast-growing population.

“We’re getting better at it, but it’s still not perfect,” says Tlusty. “It’s still a relatively new food production system. With all the people we’re putting on the earth, however, we need a portfolio of options available. Aquaculture and alternative proteins for aquaculture are going to be important. It’s one of the myriad solutions we need to be working on.”

Top photo: A fish farm off the coast of Greece. (Photo CC-licensed by Artur Rydzewski)

‘I worked for $2.46 an hour’: Struggling farmer slams supermarkets over milk prices during drought

Yahoo News

‘I worked for $2.46 an hour’: Struggling farmer slams supermarkets over milk prices during drought

Tom Flanagan,Yahoo 7 News        August 15, 2018 

A drought-stricken dairy farmer has made an emotional plea to Australia’s leading supermarkets for a fairer rate for his produce as he struggles to make ends meet.

Father of three Shane Hickey took to Facebook on Tuesday to say he was earning just $2.64 an hour in the last month as Australia’s east suffers from one of the worst droughts of the last 100 years.

“As you can tell its really dry at the minute, like it’s super, super dry,” the northern NSW farmer began.

While grateful for the widespread support farmers have received, he singled out Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and IGA for “screwing the arse off” the farming community.

Farmer Shane Hickey took to Facebook to reveal the dire situation he and other farmers find themselves in. Source: Facebook/ Shane Hickey

“I worked for $2.46 an hour. Now something’s got to change. You can’t keep this s*** up. People can’t expect farmers to continually work for nothing,” he said.

“That’s basically slavery”.

He said as the leading supermarkets “just keep on selling milk and cheese and everything else”, he was unsure where their stock will come from after his production was down 50 per cent from this time last year.

ACCC report says supermarket prices not to blame

Mr Hickey’s claims were a pressing matter in the Senate on Tuesday, with United Australia Party Senator Brian Burston urging for the government to force supermarkets to increase the price of milk from as little as $1 per litre during the drought period.

Yet Liberal Senator James McGrath reminded Senator Burston of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s recent dairy inquiry report stating costs of dairy products in supermarkets “had no direct relationship with farmgate prices received by farmers”.

Despite supermarkets retailing milk as cheap as $1 per liter, the ACCC report revealed they weren’t to blame for farmers struggling to make money. Source: Getty

“The ACCC noted that if supermarkets were to increase the price of milk, processors would still not pay farmers any more than they have to in securing milk and that the farmgate prices received by farmers would be unlikely to increase,” he said.

Labor Senator Anthony Chrisholm and Greens Senator Janet Rice agreed that increasing the shelf price of dairy products was not the short-term answer to help farmers.

The ACCC’s report into the dairy industry was published in April and instead identified the relationship between farmers and the processor, and the processor and retailers for the “imbalance in bargaining power at each level of the dairy supply chain”.

Supermarkets boast about donations to farmers

Inline with the ACCC’s findings, supermarkets have highlighted what they are doing to support farmers during their hardship instead of raising the cost of dairy products.

A Coles spokesperson told Yahoo7 News that they are full supportive of the farmers over the current conditions and have identified certain areas they believe they can help.

“Coles last month announced the Coles Nurture Fund would provide $5 million in grants and interest-free loans for farmers who have a project which will help them to combat drought,” the spokesperson said.

The drought affecting 100 per cent of NSW and substantial parts of Queensland is one of the worst to hit Australia in the last 100 years. Source: Getty

“Coles is also raising money in stores across the country for the CWA’s drought relief efforts, to provide more immediate assistance, and Coles is matching every donation dollar-for-dollar.”

Heartfelt note left for farmers struggling through drought

‘It means so much’: Donated feed delivered to farmer who faced shooting 1200 sheep

Drought heartbreak: Woman forced to put down family’s beloved horse

The spokesperson said the company has raised over $1.8 million in just over two weeks, but did not address the company’s dairy pricing policy.

Woolworths donated 100 per cent of profits from fresh food sales to the drought-stricken farmers from Saturday.

The drive follows Woolworths’ initial $1.5 million donation to the Buy a Bale campaign in July.

“We know there are many Australia farmers doing it tough with the drought and that’s why we’ve been working closely with Rural Aid to ensure more support can be provided to those impacted,” a Woolworths spokesperson told Yahoo!7 News.

The spokesperson reiterated the price a dairy farmer receives for milk is out of the supermarket’s control.

An Aldi Australia spokesperson said their efforts to help farmers are ongoing.

“ALDI is supporting drought affected farmers on a community level through food donations and fundraising from our stores,” the spokesperson said.

“We have also committed to a fundraising partnership on a national level and will share further details on this in due course.”

Not All Organic Milk Is the Same; Here Are the Best Dairies

EcoWatch

Modern Farmer

Not All Organic Milk Is the Same; Here Are the Best Dairies

By Dan Nosowitz     August 15, 2018

Ivan/Getty Images

There has been much concern in recent years about the encroachment of factory farms onto organic territory; with the premium prices organic foods can bring, many larger farms have engaged in a race to the bottom of quality, trying to just barely squeak above the organic regulations to grab that label without adhering to the spirit of the law.

The Cornucopia Institute, a watchdog group that monitors ethical agriculture in the U.S., issues periodic scorecards for organic producers. This week, they released their dairy scorecard.

All of the producers on the scorecard are certified USDA organic, and Cornucopia isn’t necessarily saying that any of these farms are breaking the rules of the organic seal. Instead, they’re rewarding the companies that go above and beyond the organic rules, which many have argued are far too lax. (Some farmers have gone so far as to create an entirely new, alternative label, so disgusted are they with the shape of organic regulation today.)

The Cornucopia scorecard rewards operations that feed cows more grass than grain, those that provide larger amounts of pasture per animal, whether the farm is owned by the farmer, whether the farm only produces organic milk (rather than a mix of organic and conventional), whether the farm was certified by a tougher agency, and operations that only milk cows once per day, among other factors. (You can out the full criteria at the bottom of this report.)

Smaller farms tend to fare better than large ones; Aurora and Horizon, two of the largest organic dairy producers in the country, both scored a big fat 0, meaning they do the bare minimum to get certified and don’t go beyond the letter of the law at all. But plenty of larger farms are rated highly, including Maple Hill Creamery, Stonyfield Farms and OrganicValley, all of which distribute nationwide.

Organic is not all equal; certainly, the regulations for organic are tougher than for conventional, but sometimes you might be presented with multiple organic options. Why not choose the option that really tries to do the right thing?

Reposted with permission from our media associate Modern Farmer.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Dirty Feed, Done Dirt Cheap: Are Consumers Who Shell Out for

Brazil’s Leading Food Retailer Goes Cage-Free

What Is Causing Florida’s Algae Crisis? 5 Questions Answered

What Is Causing Florida’s Algae Crisis? 5 Questions Answered

By Karl Havens      August 12, 2018

tcpalm.com

Editor’s note: Two large-scale algae outbreaks in Florida are killing fish and threatening public health. Along the southwest coast, one of the longest-lasting red tide outbreaks in the state’s history is affecting more than 100 miles of beaches. Meanwhile, discharges of polluted fresh water from Lake Okeechobee and polluted local runoff water from the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee watersheds have caused blooms of blue-green algae in downstream estuaries on both coasts. Karl Havens, a professor at the University of Florida and director of the Florida Sea Grant Program, explains what’s driving this two-pronged disaster.

What’s the difference between red tide and blue-green algae?

Both are photosynthetic microscopic organisms that live in water. Blue-green algae are properly called cyanobacteria. Some species of cyanobacteria occur in the ocean, but blooms—extremely high levels that create green surface scums of algae—happen mainly in lakes and rivers, where salinity is low.

What causes these blooms?

Blooms occur where lakes, rivers or near-shore waters have high concentrations of nutrients—in particular, nitrogen and phosphorus. Some lakes and rivers have naturally high nutrient concentrations. However, in Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, man-made nutrient pollution from their watersheds is causing the blooms. Very high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus are washing into the water from agricultural lands, leaky septic systems and fertilizer runoff.

Red tides form offshore, and it is not clear whether or to what extent they have become more frequent. When ocean currents carry a red tide to the shore it can intensify, especially where there are abundant nutrients to fuel algae growth. This year, after heavy spring rains and because of discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee, river runoff in southwest Florida brought a large amount of nutrients into near-shore waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which fueled the large red tide.

Algae is clearly visible in this satellite image of southwestern Lake Okeechobee, taken July 15.NASA Earth Observatory

 

The public health advisories about red tide are related to respiratory irritation, which is a particular concern for people with asthma or other respiratory issues. But almost anyone, including me, who has walked a beach where there is a red tide will quickly experience watering eyes, a runny nose and a scratchy throat. The algae that cause the red tide release a toxic chemical into the water that is easily transported into the air where waves break on the shore.

Some people are allergic to cyanobacteria blooms and can have contact dermatitis (skin rash) on exposure. Several of my colleagues have developed rashes after submerging their hands to collect water samples. It is not advisable to purposely contact water with a cyanobacteria bloom. And if farm animals or pets drink water with an intense bloom, they can become seriously ill or die.

Above video: The blooms are causing widespread fish kills and threatening Florida’s tourism industry.

How can states prepare for these events?

The onset of algae blooms is unpredictable. We know high levels of nutrients allow a lake or shoreline to have blooms. We even can predict with some certainty that a bloom is likely in a particular summer—for example, if in the preceding spring heavy rainfall and runoff from the land delivered large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus into the water.

But we can’t predict exactly when a bloom will begin and end, because that depends on things we can’t project. Why did the cyanobacteria bloom start in Lake Okeechobee this summer? Perhaps because there were several successive hot sunny days with little cloud cover and little wind. For some lakes in Florida and many others across the nation, we have loaded the surrounding land with so much phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural and urban runoff that all it takes is the right weather to trigger a bloom: A rainy spring and then a few perfect sunny days in summer.

We cannot control the weather, but we can control nutrient pollution, both by reducing it at its sources and by capturing and treating water running off of large land areas. Florida has many such projects under way as part of the greater Everglades restoration efforts, but they will take decades to complete.

Nutrient pollution sources include decaying organic material; fertilizers applied to crops, lawns and golf courses; manure from fields or feedlots; atmospheric deposition; groundwater discharge; and municipal wastewater discharge.USGSOne key aspect of rehabilitating polluted lakes, rivers and estuaries is knowing whether actions are having a positive effect. This requires long-term environmental monitoring programs, which unfortunately have been scaled back in Florida and many other states due to budget cuts.

Carefully designed monitoring could help us understand factors affecting the kind of blooms that occur and what triggers them to start and stop at particular times, and provide guidance on nutrient control strategies. We are not monitoring at that level now in Florida.

Is climate change influencing the size or frequency of these outbreaks?

Scientists have clearly shown that there is a positive and synergistic relationship between water temperature, nutrients and algal blooms. In a warmer future, with the same level of nutrient pollution, blooms will become harder if not impossible to control. This means that it is urgent to control nutrient inputs to lakes, rivers and estuaries now.

Unfortunately, today the federal government is relaxing environmental regulations in the name of fostering increased development and job creation. But conservation and economic growth are not incompatible. In Florida, a healthy economy depends strongly on a healthy environment, including clean surface waters without these harmful blooms.

Reposted with permission from our media associate The Conversation.