Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Sony



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sony Corporation
Native name
ソニー株式会社
Public
Traded as TYO: 6758
NYSESNE
Industry Conglomerate
Founded Tokyo, Japan (7 May 1946)[1]
Founder Masaru Ibuka
Akio Morita
Headquarters Minato, Tokyo, Japan
Number of locations
Yokohama
Toyama
Osaka
New York City
Mount Laurel
Teaneck
Huntington Station
Cranston
Philadelphia
King of Prussia
Pottstown
Edison
Berlin
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Osamu Nagayama
(Chairman of the Board)
Kazuo Hirai
(President and CEO)
Products Consumer electronics
Semiconductors
Video games
Media/Entertainment
Computer hardware
Telecom equipment
Services Financial services, insurance, banking, credit finance and advertising agency
Revenue Increase ¥7.767 trillion (2014)[2]
Decrease ¥26.49 billion (2014)[2]
Decrease ¥-128.36 billion (2014)[2]
Total assets Decrease ¥15.333 trillion (2014)[2]
Total equity Decrease ¥2.258 trillion (2014)[2]
Number of employees
140,900 (31 March 2014)[1]
Subsidiaries List of subsidiaries
Website Official website

Sony Corporation (ソニー株式会社 Sonī Kabushiki Gaisha?), commonly referred to as Sony, is a Japanese multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Kōnan Minato, Tokyo, Japan.[3] Its diversified business is primarily focused on the electronics (TV, gaming consoles, refrigerators), game, entertainment and financial services sectors.[2] The company is one of the leading manufacturers of electronic products for the consumer and professional markets.[4] Sony is ranked 105th on the 2014 list of Fortune Global 500.[5]

Sony Corporation is the electronics business unit and the parent company of the Sony Group, which is engaged in business through its four operating segments – electronics (including video games, network services and medical business), motion pictures, music and financial services.[6][7][8] These make Sony one of the most comprehensive entertainment companies in the world. Sony's principal business operations include Sony Corporation (Sony Electronics in the U.S.), Sony Pictures Entertainment, Sony Computer Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Mobile Communications (formerly Sony Ericsson), and Sony Financial. Sony is among the Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders and third-largest television manufacturer in the world, after Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics.

The Sony Group (ソニー・グループ Sonī Gurūpu?) is a Japan-based corporate group primarily focused on the Electronics (such as AV/IT products and components), Game (such as the PlayStation), Entertainment (such as motion pictures and music), and Financial Services (such as insurance and banking) sectors. The group consists of Sony Corporation (holding and electronics), Sony Computer Entertainment (games), Sony Pictures Entertainment (motion pictures), Sony Music Entertainment (music), Sony/ATV Music Publishing (music publishing), Sony Financial Holdings (financial services) and others.

Its founders Akio Morita and Masaru Ibuka derived the name from sonus, the Latin word for sound, and also from the English slang word "sonny", since they considered themselves to be "sonny boys", a loan word into Japanese which in the early 1950s connoted smart and presentable young men.[4] The company's current slogan is BE MOVED. Their former slogans were make.believe (2009–2014) and like.no.other (2005–2014).

History


Masaru Ibuka, the co-founder of Sony

Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo

Sony began in the wake of World War II. In 1946, Masaru Ibuka started an electronics shop in a department store building in Tokyo. The company had $530 in capital and a total of eight employees.[9] In the following year he was joined by his colleague, Akio Morita, and they founded a company called Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo[10][11] (Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corporation). The company built Japan's first tape recorder, called the Type-G.[10] In 1958 the company changed its name to "Sony".

Sony name change

When Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo was looking for a romanized name to use to market themselves, they strongly considered using their initials, TTK. The primary reason they did not is that the railway company Tokyo Kyuko was known as TTK.[10] The company occasionally used the acronym "Totsuko" in Japan, but during his visit to the United States, Morita discovered that Americans had trouble pronouncing that name. Another early name that was tried out for a while was "Tokyo Teletech" until Akio Morita discovered that there was an American company already using Teletech as a brand name.[12]

The name "Sony" was chosen for the brand as a mix of two words. One was the Latin word "Sonus", which is the root of sonic and sound, and the other was "Sonny", a familiar term used in 1950s America to call a boy.[4] The first Sony-branded product, the TR-55 transistor radio, appeared in 1955 but the company name did not change to Sony until January 1958.[13]

At the time of the change, it was extremely unusual for a Japanese company to use Roman letters to spell its name instead of writing it in kanji. The move was not without opposition: TTK's principal bank at the time, Mitsui, had strong feelings about the name. They pushed for a name such as Sony Electronic Industries, or Sony Teletech. Akio Morita was firm, however, as he did not want the company name tied to any particular industry. Eventually, both Ibuka and Mitsui Bank's chairman gave their approval.[10]

Globalization

According to Schiffer, Sony's TR-63 radio "cracked open the U.S. market and launched the new industry of consumer microelectronics." By the mid-1950s, American teens had begun buying portable transistor radios in huge numbers, helping to propel the fledgling industry from an estimated 100,000 units in 1955 to 5 million units by the end of 1968.[citation needed]

Sony co-founder Akio Morita founded Sony Corporation of America in 1960.[9] In the process, he was struck by the mobility of employees between American companies, which was unheard of in Japan at that time.[9] When he returned to Japan, he encouraged experienced, middle-aged employees of other companies to reevaluate their careers and consider joining Sony.[9] The company filled many positions in this manner, and inspired other Japanese companies to do the same.[9] Moreover, Sony played a major role in the development of Japan as a powerful exporter during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.[14] It also helped to significantly improve American perceptions of "made in Japan" products.[15] Known for its production quality, Sony was able to charge above-market prices for its consumer electronics and resisted lowering prices.[15]

In 1971, Masaru Ibuka handed the position of president over to his co-founder Akio Morita. Sony began a life insurance company in 1979, one of its many peripheral businesses. Amid a global recession in the early 1980s, electronics sales dropped and the company was forced to cut prices.[15] Sony's profits fell sharply. "It's over for Sony," one analyst concluded. "The company's best days are behind it."[15] Around that time, Norio Ohga took up the role of president. He encouraged the development of the Compact Disc in the 1970s and 80s, and of the PlayStation in the early 1990s. Ohga went on to purchase CBS Records in 1988 and Columbia Pictures in 1989, greatly expanding Sony's media presence. Ohga would succeed Morita as chief executive officer in 1989.[citation needed]

Under the vision of co-founder Akio Morita[16] and his successors, the company had aggressively expanded into new businesses.[14] Part of its motivation for doing so was the pursuit of "convergence," linking film, music, and digital electronics via the Internet.[14] This expansion proved unrewarding and unprofitable,[14] threatening Sony's ability to charge a premium on its products[16] as well as its brand name.[16] In 2005, Howard Stringer replaced Nobuyuki Idei as chief executive officer, marking the first time that a foreigner has run a major Japanese electronics firm. Stringer helped to reinvigorate the company's struggling media businesses, encouraging blockbusters such as Spider-Man while cutting 9,000 jobs.[14] He hoped to sell off peripheral business and focus the company again on electronics.[16] Furthermore, he aimed to increase cooperation between business units,[16] which he described as "silos" operating in isolation from one another.[17] In a bid to provide a unified brand for its global operations, Sony introduced a slogan known as "make.believe" in 2009.[citation needed]

Despite some successes, the company faced continued struggles in the mid- to late-2000s.[14] It became known for its stagnancy, with a fading brand name.[14] In 2012, Kazuo Hirai was promoted to president and CEO, replacing Sir Howard Stringer. Shortly thereafter, Hirai outlined his company-wide initiative, named "One Sony" to revive Sony from years of financial losses and bureaucratic management structure, which proved difficult for former CEO Stringer to accomplish, partly due to differences in business culture and native languages between Stringer and some of Sony's Japanese divisions and subsidiaries. Hirai outlined three major areas of focus for Sony's electronics business, which include imaging technology, gaming and mobile technology, as well as a focus on reducing the major losses from the television business.[18]

In February 2014, Sony announced the sale of its Vaio PC division to a new corporation owned by investment fund Japan Industrial Partners and spinning its TV division into its own corporation as to make it more nimble to turn the unit around from past losses totaling $7.8 billion over a decade.[19] Later that month, they announced that they would be closing 20 stores.[20] In April, the company announced that they would be selling 9.5 million shares in Square Enix (roughly 8.2 percent of the game company's total shares) in a deal worth approximately $48 million.[21] In May 2014 the company announced it was forming two joint ventures with Shanghai Oriental Pearl Group to manufacture and market Sony's PlayStation games consoles and associated software in China.[citation needed]

Formats and technologies

Sony has historically been notable for creating its own in-house standards for new recording and storage technologies, instead of adopting those of other manufacturers and standards bodies. Sony (either alone or with partners) has introduced several of the most popular recording formats, including the floppy disk, Compact Disc, and Blu-ray Disc.

Video recording

The company launched the Betamax videocassette recording format in 1975. Sony became embroiled in the infamous videotape format war of the early 1980s, when Sony was marketing the Betamax system for video cassette recorders against the VHS format developed by JVC. In the end, VHS gained critical mass in the marketbase and became the worldwide standard for consumer VCRs and Sony adopted the format.

While Betamax is for all practical purposes an obsolete format, a professional-oriented component video format called Betacam that was derived from Betamax is still used today, especially in the television industry, although far less so in recent years with the introduction of digital and high definition.

In 1985, Sony launched their Handycam products and the Video8 format. Video8 and the follow-on hi-band Hi8 format became popular in the consumer camcorder market. In 1987 Sony launched the 4 mm DAT or Digital Audio Tape as a new digital audio tape standard.

Audio recording

In 1979 the Walkman brand was introduced, in the form of the world's first portable music player using the compact cassette format. Sony introduced the MiniDisc format in 1992 as an alternative to Philips DCC or Digital Compact Cassette and as a successor to the compact cassette. Since the introduction of MiniDisc, Sony has attempted to promote its own audio compression technologies under the ATRAC brand, against the more widely used MP3. Until late 2004, Sony's Network Walkman line of digital portable music players did not support the MP3 de facto standard natively.

In 2004, Sony built upon the MiniDisc format by releasing Hi-MD. Hi-MD allows the playback and recording of audio on newly introduced 1 GB Hi-MD discs in addition to playback and recording on regular MiniDiscs. In addition to saving audio on the discs, Hi-MD allows the storage of computer files such as documents, videos and photos.

Audio encoding

In 1993, Sony challenged the industry standard Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound format with a newer and more advanced proprietary motion picture digital audio format called SDDS (Sony Dynamic Digital Sound). This format employed eight channels (7.1) of audio opposed to just six used in Dolby Digital 5.1 at the time. Ultimately, SDDS has been vastly overshadowed by the preferred DTS (Digital Theatre System) and Dolby Digital standards in the motion picture industry. SDDS was solely developed for use in the theatre circuit; Sony never intended to develop a home theatre version of SDDS.[citation needed]

Sony and Philips jointly developed the Sony-Philips digital interface format (S/PDIF) and the high-fidelity audio system SACD. The latter has since been entrenched in a format war with DVD-Audio. At present, neither has gained a major foothold with the general public. CDs are preferred by consumers because of ubiquitous presence of CD drives in consumer devices.[citation needed]

Optical storage

In 1983, Sony followed their counterpart Philips to the Compact Disc (CD). In addition to developing consumer-based recording media, after the launch of the CD Sony began development of commercially based recording media. In 1986 they launched Write-Once optical discs (WO) and in 1988 launched Magneto-optical discs which were around 125MB size for the specific use of archival data storage.[22] In 1984, Sony launched the Discman series which extended their Walkman brand to portable CD products.

In the early 1990s, two high-density optical storage standards were being developed: one was the MultiMedia Compact Disc (MMCD), backed by Philips and Sony, and the other was the Super Density disc (SD), supported by Toshiba and many others. Philips and Sony abandoned their MMCD format and agreed upon Toshiba's SD format with only one modification. The unified disc format was called DVD and was introduced in 1997.

Sony was one of the leading developers of the Blu-ray Disc optical disc format, the newest standard for disc-based content delivery. The first Blu-ray players became commercially available in 2006. The format emerged as the standard for HD media over the competing format, Toshiba's HD DVD, after a two-year-long format war.

Disk storage

In 1983 Sony introduced 90 mm micro diskettes (better known as 3.5-inch (89 mm) floppy disks), which it had developed at a time when there were 4" floppy disks, and a lot of variations from different companies, to replace the then on-going 5.25" floppy disks. Sony had great success and the format became dominant. 3.5" floppy disks gradually became obsolete as they were replaced by current media formats.

Flash memory

Sony launched in 1998 their Memory Stick format, flash memory cards for use in Sony lines of digital cameras and portable music players. It has seen little support outside of Sony's own products, with Secure Digital cards (SD) commanding considerably greater popularity. Sony has made updates to the Memory Stick format with Memory Stick Duo and Memory Stick Micro.

Business units

Sony offers a number of products in a variety of product lines around the world.[23] Sony has developed a music playing robot called Rolly, dog-shaped robots called AIBO and a humanoid robot called QRIO.

As of 1 April 2012, Sony is organized into the following business segments: Imaging Products & Solutions (IP&S), Game, Mobile Products & Communications (MP&C), Home Entertainment & Sound (HE&S), Devices, Pictures, Music, Financial Services and All Other.[24] The network and medical businesses are included in the All Other.

Electronics

Sony Corporation


Sony Corporation is the electronics business unit and the parent company of the Sony Group. It primarily conducts strategic business planning of the group, research and development (R&D), planning, designing and marketing for electronics products. Its subsidiaries such as Sony EMCS[clarification needed] Corporation (6 plants in Japan), Sony Semiconductor Corporation (7 plants in Japan) and its subsidiaries outside Japan (Brazil, China, England, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Ireland and United States) are responsible for manufacturing as well as product engineering (Sony EMCS[clarification needed] is also responsible for customer service operations). In 2012, Sony rolled most of its consumer content services (including video, music, and gaming) into the Sony Entertainment Network.
Audio
Sony produced the world's first portable music player, the Walkman in 1979. This line fostered a fundamental change in music listening habits by allowing people to carry music with them and listen to music through lightweight headphones. Walkman originally referred to portable audio cassette players. The company now uses the Walkman brand to market its portable audio and video players as well as a line of former Sony Ericsson mobile phones.

Sony utilized a related brand, Discman, to refer to its CD players. It dropped this name in the late 1990s.
Computing
Sony sells many of its computer products using the VAIO brand.

Sony produced computers (MSX home computers and NEWS workstations) during the 1980s, exclusively for sale in the Japanese market. The company withdrew from the computer business around 1990. Sony entered again into the global computer market under the new VAIO brand, began in 1996. Short for "Video Audio Integrated Operation", the line was the first computer brand to highlight visual-audio features.[17]

Sony faced considerable controversy when some of its laptop batteries exploded and caught fire in 2006,[25] resulting in the largest computer-related recall to that point in history.[26][27][28]

In a bid to join the tablet computer market, the company launched its Sony Tablet line of Android tablets in 2011. Since 2012, Sony's Android products have been marketed under the Xperia brand used for its smartphones.[29]

On 4 February 2014, Sony announced that it will sell its VAIO PC business due to poor sales[30] and Japanese company Japan Industrial Partners (JIP) will purchase the VAIO brand, with the deal finalized by the end of March 2014.[31] However, in a news release on the Sony Global website, published on 5 February, the corporations states: "Sony continues to address various options for the PC business, but Sony has no further comments."[32]
Photography
Sony offers a wide range of digital cameras. Point-and-shoot models adopt the Cyber-shot name, while digital single-lens reflex models are branded using Alpha.

The first Cyber-shot was introduced in 1996. At the time, digital cameras were a relative novelty. Sony's market share of the digital camera market fell from a high of 20% to 9% by 2005.[17]

Sony entered the market for digital single-lens reflex cameras in 2006 when it acquired the camera business of Konica Minolta. Sony rebranded the company's line of cameras as its Alpha line. Sony is the world's third largest manufacturer of the cameras, behind Canon and Nikon respectively.
Video
In 1968 Sony introduced the Trinitron brand name for its lines of aperture grille cathode ray tube televisions and (later) computer monitors. Sony stopped production of Trinitron for most markets, but continued producing sets for markets such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and China. Sony discontinued its series of Trinitron computer monitors in 2005. The company discontinued the last Trinitron-based television set in the USA in early 2007. The end of Trinitron marked the end of Sony's analog television sets and monitors.

Sony used the LCD WEGA name for its LCD TVs until summer 2005. The company then introduced the BRAVIA name. BRAVIA is an in house brand owned by Sony which produces high-definition LCD televisions, projection TVs and front projectors, home cinemas and the BRAVIA home theatre range. All Sony high-definition flat-panel LCD televisions in North America have carried the logo for BRAVIA since 2005. Sony is the third-largest maker of televisions in the world.[33] As of 2012, Sony's television business has been unprofitable for eight years.[33]

In December 2011, Sony agreed to sell all stake in an LCD joint venture with Samsung Electronics for about $940 million.[34] On 28 March 2012, Sony Corporation and Sharp Corporation announced that they have agreed to further amend the joint venture agreement originally executed by the parties in July 2009, as amended in April 2011, for the establishment and operation of Sharp Display Products Corporation ("SDP"), a joint venture to produce and sell large-sized LCD panels and modules.[35]

Sony also sells a range of DVD players. It has shifted its focus in recent years to promoting the Blu-ray format, including discs and players.
Semiconductor and components
Sony produces a wide range of semiconductors and electronic components including image sensors, image processor (BIONZ), laser diodes, system LSIs, mixed-signal LSIs, OLED panels, etc. The company has a strong presence in the image sensor market. Sony-manufactured CCD and CMOS image sensors are widely used in digital cameras, tablet computers and smartphones.
Medical-related business
Sony has targeted medical, healthcare and biotechnology business as a growth sector in the future. The company acquired iCyt Mission Technology, Inc. (renamed Sony Biotechnology Inc. in 2012), a manufacture of flow cytometers, in 2010 and Micronics, Inc., a developer of microfluidics-based diagnostic tools, in 2011.

In 2012, Sony announced that it will acquire all shares of So-net Entertainment Corporation, which is the majority shareholder of M3, Inc., an operator of portal sites (m3.com, MR-kun, MDLinx and MEDI:GATE) for healthcare professionals.

On 28 September 2012, Olympus and Sony announced that the two companies will establish a joint venture to develop new surgical endoscopes with 4K resolution (or higher) and 3D capability.[36] Sony Olympus Medical Solutions Inc. (Sony 51%, Olympus 49%) was established on 16 April 2013.[37]

On 28 February 2014, Sony, M3 and Illumina established a joint venture called P5, Inc. to provide a genome analysis service for research institutions and enterprises in Japan.[38]

Sony Mobile Communications

Sony Mobile Communications Inc. (formerly Sony Ericsson) is a multinational mobile phone manufacturing company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan and a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation.
In 2001, Sony entered into a joint venture with Swedish telecommunications company Ericsson, forming Sony Ericsson.[39] Initial sales were rocky, and the company posted losses in 2001 and 2002. However, SMC reached a profit in 2003. Sony Ericsson distinguished itself with multimedia-capable mobile phones, which included features such as cameras. These were unusual for the time. Despite their innovations, SMC faced intense competition from Apple's iPhone, released in 2007. From 2008 to 2010, amid a global recession, SMC slashed its workforce by several thousand. Sony acquired Ericsson's share of the venture in 2012 for over US$1 billion.[39] In 2009, SMC was the fourth-largest mobile phone manufacturer in the world (after Nokia, Samsung and LG).[40] By 2010, its market share had fallen to sixth place.[41] Sony Mobile Communications now focuses exclusively on the smartphone market under the Xperia name.

Sony Computer Entertainment

The PlayStation 2 is the best-selling video game console of all time.

Sony Computer Entertainment is best known for producing the popular line of PlayStation consoles. The line grew out of a failed partnership with Nintendo. Originally, Nintendo requested for Sony to develop an add-on for its console that would play Compact Discs. In 1991 Sony announced the add-on, as well as a dedicated console known as the "Play Station". However, a disagreement over software licensing for the console caused the partnership to fall through. Sony then continued the project independently.

Launched in 1994, the first PlayStation gained 61% of global console sales and broke Nintendo's long-standing lead in the market.[42] Sony followed up with the PlayStation 2 in 2000, which was even more successful. The console has become the most successful of all time, selling over 150 million units as of 2011. Sony released the PlayStation 3, a high-definition console, in 2006. It was the first console to use the Blu-ray format, although its expensive[17] Cell processor made it considerably more expensive than competitors Xbox 360 and Wii. Early on, poor sales performance resulted in significant losses for the company, pushing it to sell the console at a loss.[43] The PlayStation 3 sold generally more poorly than its competitors in the early years of its release but managed to overtake the Xbox 360 in global sales later on.[44] It later introduced the PlayStation Move, an accessory that allows players to control video games using motion gestures.

Sony extended the brand to the portable games market in 2005 with the PlayStation Portable (PSP). The console has sold reasonably, but has taken a second place to a rival handheld, the Nintendo DS. Sony developed the Universal Media Disc (UMD) optical disc medium for use on the PlayStation Portable. Early on, the format was used for movies, but it has since lost major studio support. Sony released a disc-less version of its PlayStation Portable, the PSP Go. The company went on to release its second portable video game system, PlayStation Vita, in 2011 and 2012. Sony launched its fourth console, the PlayStation 4, on 15 November 2013.

On 18 March 2014, at GDC, President of Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios Shuhei Yoshida announced their new virtual reality technology dubbed Project Morpheus for PlayStation 4. The headset, still in prototype form, will bring VR gaming and non-gaming software to the company's new console.

Electric vehicles and batteries

Sony elected to participate in the NRG Energy eVgo Ready for Electric Vehicle (REV) program. The REV program provides qualified workplaces with turn-key EV charging solutions, in addition to providing charger maintenance and driver support 24 hours a day. The Level 2 chargers, dedicated for the use of individual employees, are compatible with all EVs, fully charge most during the workday and integrate seamlessly with eVgo’s comprehensive network of home and on-the-go charging stations giving range confidence to EV drivers wherever they choose to charge.[45]

Sony also announced its intentions to fab lithium-ion batteries for the vehicles.[46][47][48]

Google is working on automobile technology, self driving cars and even perhaps a driverless taxi service. More recently Apple was rumoured to be working on electric vehicles (iCar/Project Titan) to rival those made by the likes of Tesla. Sony company hopes to do well from the self-driving automotive industry and has invested has invested $842,000 in ZMP. [49][50]

Entertainment

Sony Pictures Entertainment

Sony Pictures Plaza, next to the main studio lot of Sony Pictures Entertainment in Culver City

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (SPE) is the television and film production/distribution unit of Sony. With 12.5% box office market share in 2011, the company was ranked third among movie studios.[51] Its group sales in 2010 were US$7.2 billion.[7][52] The company has produced many notable movie franchises, including Spider-Man, The Karate Kid, and Men in Black. It has also produced the popular television game shows Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune.

Sony entered the television and film production market when it acquired Columbia Pictures Entertainment in 1989 for $3.4 billion. Columbia lives on in the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group, a subsidiary of SPE which in turn owns Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures. SPE's television division is known as Sony Pictures Television.

For the first several years of its existence, Sony Pictures Entertainment performed poorly, leading many to suspect the company would sell off the division.[53] Sony Pictures Entertainment encountered controversy in the early 2000s. In July 2000, a marketing executive working for Sony Corporation created a fictitious film critic, David Manning, who gave consistently good reviews for releases from Sony subsidiary Columbia Pictures that generally received poor reviews amongst real critics.[54] Sony later pulled the ads, suspended Manning's creator and his supervisor and paid fines to the state of Connecticut[55] and to fans who saw the reviewed films in the US.[56] In 2006 Sony started using ARccOS Protection on some of their film DVDs, but later issued a recall.[57]

Sony Music Entertainment

Sony Music Entertainment (also known as SME or Sony Music) is the second-largest global recorded music company of the "big four" record companies and is controlled by Sony Corporation of America, the United States subsidiary of Japan's Sony. The company owns full or partial rights to the catalogues of Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Usher, Eminem, Akon, and others.
In one of its largest-ever acquisitions, Sony purchased CBS Record Group in 1987 for US$2 billion. In the process, Sony gained the rights to the catalogue of Michael Jackson, considered by the Guinness Book of World Records to be the most successful entertainer of all time. The acquisition of CBS Records provided the foundation for the formation of Sony Music Entertainment, which Sony established in 1991.

In 2004, Sony entered into a joint venture with Bertelsmann AG, merging Sony Music Entertainment with Bertelsmann Music Group to create Sony BMG. In 2005, Sony BMG faced a copy protection scandal, because its music CDs had installed a controversial feature on users' computers that was posing a security risk to affected users.[citation needed] In 2007, the company acquired Famous Music for US$370 million, gaining the rights to the catalogues of Eminem and Akon, among others.

Sony bought out Bertelsmann's share in the company and formed a new Sony Music Entertainment in 2008. Since then, the company has undergone management changes.

Sony Music Entertainment Japan

In January 1988, Sony acquired CBS Records and the 50% of CBS/Sony Group. In March 1988, four wholly owned subsidiaries were folded into CBS/Sony Group: CBS/Sony Inc., Epic/Sony Records Inc., CBS/Sony Records Inc. and Sony Video Software International. The company was renamed Sony Music Entertainment (Japan), Inc. SMEJ is directly owned by Sony Corporation and is independent from the United States-based Sony Music Entertainment.

Sony/ATV Music Publishing

Besides its record label, Sony operates other music businesses. In 1995, Sony purchased a 50% stake in ATV Music Publishing, forming Sony/ATV Music Publishing. At the time, the publishing company was the second-largest of its kind in the world. The company owns much of the publishing rights to the catalogue of The Beatles. Sony purchased digital music recognition company Gracenote for US$260 million in 2008.[58]

Finance

Sony Financial Services

Sony Financial Holdings is a holding company for Sony's financial services business. It owns and oversees the operation of Sony Life (in Japan and the Philippines), Sony Assurance, Sony Bank and Sony Bank Securities. The company is headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.

Sony Financial accounts for half of Sony's global earnings.[59] The unit proved the most profitable of Sony's businesses in fiscal year 2006, earning $1.7 billion in profit.[16] Sony Financial's low fees have aided the unit's popularity while threatening Sony's premium brand name.[16]

Corporate information

Finances

Sony is one of Japan's largest corporations by revenue. It had revenues of ¥6.493 trillion in 2012. It also maintains large reserves of cash, with ¥895 billion on hand as of 2012. In May 2012, Sony shares were valued at about $15 billion.[60]

The company was immensely profitable throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, in part because of the success of its new PlayStation line. The company encountered financial difficulty in the mid- to late-2000s due to a number of factors: the global financial crisis, increased competition for PlayStation, and the devastating Japanese earthquake of 2011. The company faced three consecutive years of losses leading up to 2011.[61] While noting the negative effects of intervening circumstances such as natural disasters and fluctuating currency exchange rates,[61] the Financial Times criticized the company for its "lack of resilience" and "inability to gauge the economy."[61] The newspaper voiced skepticism about Sony's revitalization efforts, given a lack of tangible results.[61]

In September 2000 Sony had a market capitalization of $100 billion; but by December 2011 it had plunged to $18 billion, reflecting falling prospects for Sony but also reflecting grossly inflated share prices of the 'dot.com' years.[62] Net worth, as measured by stockholder equity, has steadily grown from $17.9 billion in March 2002 to $35.6 billion through December 2011.[63] Earnings yield (inverse of the price to earnings ratio) has never been more than 5% and usually much less; thus Sony has always traded in over-priced ranges with the exception of the 2009 market bottom.

In April 2012, Sony announced that it would reduce its workforce by 10,000 (6% of its employee base) as part of CEO Hirai's effort to get the company back into the black. This came after a loss of 520 billion yen (roughly US$6.36 billion) for fiscal 2012, the worst since the company was founded. Accumulation loss for the past four years was 919.32 billion-yen.[64][65] Sony plans to increase its marketing expenses by 30% in 2012.[66] 1,000 of the jobs cut come from the company's mobile phone unit's workforce. 700 jobs will be cut in the 2012–2013 fiscal year and the remaining 300 in the following fiscal year.[67]

Sony's 2009 sales and distribution by geographical region[68]
Geographic region Total sales (yen in millions)
Japan 1,873,219
United States 2,512,345
Europe 2,307,658
Other Areas 2,041,270

On 9 December 2008, Sony Corporation announced that it would be cutting 8,000 jobs, dropping 8,000 contractors and reducing its global manufacturing sites by 10% to save $1.1 billion per year.[69]

In January 2013, Sony announced it was selling its US headquarters building for $1.1 billion to a consortium led by real estate developer The Chetrit Group.[70]

On 28 January 2014, Moody's Investors Services dropped Sony's credit rating to Ba1—"judged to have speculative elements and a significant credit risk"—saying that the company's "profitability is likely to remain weak and volatile."[71]

On 6 February 2014, Sony announced it would trim as many as 5,000 jobs as it attempts to sell its PC business and focus on mobile and tablets.[72]

Environmental record

In November 2011, Sony was ranked 9th (jointly with Panasonic) in Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics. This chart grades major electronics companies on their environmental work. The company scored 3.6/10, incurring a penalty point for comments it has made in opposition to energy efficiency standards in California. It also risks a further penalty point in future editions for being a member of trade associations that have commented against energy efficiency standards.[73] Together with Philips, Sony receives the highest score for energy policy advocacy after calling on the EU to adopt an unconditional 30% reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Meanwhile, it receives full marks for the efficiency of its products.[73] In 2007, Sony ranked 14th on the Greenpeace guide. Sony fell from its earlier 11th place ranking due to Greenpeace's claims that Sony had double standards in their waste policies.[74]

Since 1976, Sony has had an Environmental Conference.[75] Sony's policies address their effects on global warming, the environment, and resources. They are taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that they put out as well as regulating the products they get from their suppliers in a process that they call "green procurement".[76] Sony has said that they have signed on to have about 75 percent of their Sony Building running on geothermal power. The "Sony Take Back Recycling Program" allow consumers to recycle the electronics products that they buy from Sony by taking them to eCycle (Recycling) drop-off points around the U.S. The company has also developed a biobattery that runs on sugars and carbohydrates that works similarly to the way living creatures work. This is the most powerful small biobattery to date.[77]

In 2000, Sony faced criticism for a document entitled "NGO Strategy" that was leaked to the press. The document involved the company's surveillance of environmental activists in an attempt to plan how to counter their movements. It specifically mentioned environmental groups that were trying to pass laws that held electronics-producing companies responsible for the cleanup of the toxic chemicals contained in their merchandise.[78]

Community Engagement

EYE SEE project

Sony Corporation is actively involved in the EYE SEE project conducted by UNICEF. EYE SEE digital photography workshops have been run for children in Argentina, Tunisia, Mali, South Africa, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Rwanda, Liberia and Pakistan.[79]

South Africa Mobile Library Project

Sony assists The South Africa Primary Education Support Initiative (SAPESI) through financial donations and children book donations to the South Africa Mobile Library Project.[80]

The Sony Canada Charitable Foundation

The Sony Canada Charitable Foundation (SCCF) is a non-profit organization which supports three key charities; the Make-A-Wish Canada, the United Way of Canada and the EarthDay and ECOKIDS program.

Sony Foundation and You Can

After the floods of 2011 and Victorian bushfires, Sony Music released benefit albums with money raised going to the Sony Foundation.[81] You Can is the youth cancer program of Sony Foundation.[82]

Open Planet Ideas Crowdsourcing Project

Sony launched its Open Planet Ideas Crowdsourcing Project, in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund and the design group, IDEO.[83]

Street Football Stadium Project

On the occasion of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, Sony partnered with streetfootballworld and launched the Street Football Stadium Project to support football-based educational programmes in local communities across Latin America and Brazil.[84]

Artificial proteins could bring the next biological revolution – starting with MRI

Scientists and engineers have looked to nature for their inspiration for centuries. The field of biomimetics uses ideas from nature to solve complex human challenges. Synthetic biology, a more recent concept…
Complex but mighty useful. molekuul.be
Scientists and engineers have looked to nature for their inspiration for centuries. The field of biomimetics uses ideas from nature to solve complex human challenges.

Synthetic biology, a more recent concept, focuses on the design of artificial devices or systems with biological or “bio-like” functions. This covers a wide range of applications – but perhaps the most fascinating biological “device” we could wish to emulate is the protein.

Proteins are responsible for many of the key processes of life such as respiration and photosynthesis. They perform complex functions such as transferring electrons or breaking chemical bonds.

But look closer into these systems and you quickly learn that the central part of the process is often not the protein itself, but the metal ion nestled inside the protein. The rest of the protein provides a sophisticated scaffold to delicately tune the properties of the metal ion.

If you have ever looked at a periodic table, you will know that there are a lot of metals. However, if you start looking at nature, you quickly realise that biology is not particularly imaginative. Metal-containing proteins – metalloproteins, as they are called – tend to use metals from the first row of the transition elements. Many of these only involve iron or copper.

On the whole, this is a matter of convenience. Some metals are more abundant than others. It makes sense that life should not need elements which are only found deep inside the earth’s crust.

And yet, with the few metals that it has chosen, life’s processes are some of the most efficient chemical processes we know. This is where the importance of the protein becomes apparent. This carefully folded, complex organic molecule is what enables the simple metal centre to perform such an astonishing range of tasks.

Designer proteins

Given this knowledge, it might seem that we can achieve anything. Surely if there is a reaction that needs to be performed, we just need to choose a metal and design the right environment for it? Unlike nature, we have the entire periodic table to play with.

The trouble is that proteins are so much more sophisticated than anything we can achieve synthetically. If we try and reproduce this biological activity we tend to fail. The other problem is that our required environments might contain features that are not found in native proteins. Also, proteins are stable only in a narrow temperature range and do not tolerate changes in their environment. So can we harness the advantages of nature but without the need for such enormous and complex molecules?
An atom of gallodinium, surrounded by artificial protein coiled-coils Matthew R. Berwick et al. JACS 2014
A group led by Anna Peacock at the University of Birmingham is doing just this. They design miniature artificial proteins that bridge the gap between conventional synthetic molecules and the leviathans of biology.

Peacock is particularly interested in metals called lanthanides. There are no known biological roles for these metals, but huge industrial interest. She has recently collected some remarkable evidence to back up this idea. This evidence comes in the form of a rather beautiful gadolinium complex.

Better markers for MRI

Gadolinium, a lanthanide metal, is used widely in applications such as medical imaging. Compounds containing the metal are injected into the body to enhance contrast in MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans. What Peacock and colleagues have done is to capture gadolinium ions inside short sections of synthetic protein.

Many proteins form spiral structures called alpha helices. The new gadolinium miniature protein is made up of a gadolinium ion surrounded by three of these helices making a “coiled coil”. This is a bit like the multiple coiled structures you might see in a length of rope in which a coiled strong is then coiled again, multiple times to form something thicker and stronger.

Coiled coils in themselves are not new. What is remarkable about this work is that by binding gadolinium inside a coiled coil, it is possible to achieve much greater MRI efficiency than standard gadolinium complexes made with small molecules. What is even more significant is that the position of the gadolinium within the coiled coil is critical to its function. This means that it is the extended environment of the miniature protein that is changing the properties of the metal.

This remarkable protein-like behaviour is just the beginning. The motivation for the work spreads far beyond this gadolinium story. As Peacock told me: “Nature can achieve so much with just a few metals. If we can carefully design new metal environments then perhaps we can achieve chemistry that were never thought possible.”

Why the world’s most intelligent people shouldn’t be so afraid of artificial intelligenc e

January 20
Original link:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/01/20/why-the-worlds-most-intelligent-people-shouldnt-be-so-afraid-of-artificial-intelligence/
 
Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and a number of other tech luminaries from MIT, IBM and Harvard recently signed off on an open letter from the nonprofit Future of Life Institute warning about the perils of artificial intelligence. Without the appropriate safety measures built in, they argue, the rapid growth of artificial intelligence could end in disaster for humanity.

Of course, it’s easy to understand why AI has been giving rise to dystopian fears about the future from the world’s most intelligent people. That’s because the problem at the heart of AI is something that the supporters of the Future of Life letter refer to as “existential risk” — the risk that very bad things can happen in the near future to wipe out the human race as a result of technology gone bad.
“Existential risk” is precisely what makes Hollywood sci-fi movies so scary. In last year’s dystopian thriller “Transcendence,” for example, Johnny Depp morphs into a super-brain with the ability to wipe the human race off the planet. At about the same time the movie hit cinemas, Hawking bluntly warned about the risks of super-intelligence: “I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”

The reason, Hawking told the BBC in an interview, is that, “Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.” In short, if computers get too smart, it’s game over for humans.

In the Future of Life letter, Musk and Hawking hint at a dystopian future in which humans have lost control of self-driving cars, drones, lethal weapons  and the right to privacy. Even worse, computers would become smarter than humans and at some point, would decide that humans really aren’t so necessary after all. And they would do so not because they are inherently evil, but because they are so inherently rational – humans tend to make a mess of things.

But how likely is it, really, that an AI super-mind could wreak that kind of havoc and decide that humans are expendable?

The flip side of “existential risk” is “existential reward” — the possibility that very good things can happen in the near future as a result of exponential leaps in technology. For every Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, there’s a Ray Kurzweil or Peter Diamandis. People who focus on “existential reward” claim that AI will bring forth a utopian future, in which the human brain’s full potential will be opened up, giving us the ability to discover new cures, new sources of energy, and new solutions to all of humanity’s problems. Even the supporters of Future of Life’s dystopian AI premise concede that there are a lot of positives out there, including the “eradication of disease and poverty.”

If you think about what AI has already accomplished, well, there’s a lot more that can be done when super-intelligence is applied to the pressing humanitarian issues of the day. The Future of Life letter notes how far, how fast, we’ve already come. AI has given us speech recognition, image classification, autonomous vehicles and machine translation. Thinking in terms of “existential reward” is what leads one to think about the future as one of abundance, in which AI helps — not hurts — humanity.

The types of AI safeguards alluded to by Hawking and Musk in the Future of Life open letter could make a difference in ensuring “reward” wins out over “risk.” In short, these safeguards could tilt the playing field in favor of humans, by ensuring that “our AI systems must do what we want them to do.”

However, to view the debate over AI purely in terms of humans vs. the machines misses the point. It’s not us vs. them in a race for mastery of planet Earth, with human intelligence evolving linearly and digital intelligence evolving exponentially. What’s more likely is some form of hybrid evolution in which humans remain in charge but develop augmented capabilities as a result of technology. One popular scenario for sci-fi fans is one in which humans and computers ultimately merge into some sort of interstellar species, figure out how to leave planet Earth behind on a new mission to colonize the galaxy and live happily ever after.

When a technology is so obviously dangerous — like nuclear energy or synthetic biology — humanity has an imperative to consider dystopian predictions of the future. But it also has an imperative to push on, to reach its full potential. While it’s scary, sure, that humans may no longer be the smartest life forms in the room a generation from now, should we really be that concerned? Seems like we’ve already done a pretty good job of finishing off the planet anyway. If anything, we should be welcoming our AI masters to arrive sooner rather than later.
 
Dominic Basulto is a futurist and blogger based in New York City.

These Shocking Numbers Show Organic Farming's Biggest Downfall

Source: thebittenword.com/Flickr.

You've heard this stat before, but it's worth mentioning again: The United Nations has estimated that food production will need to nearly double from 2008 levels by the year 2050 to feed the world's growing population (nearly all from the least developed nations) and make up for shrinking agricultural land. That means that to boost yields and combat pests, farmers will need to increasingly rely on technology ranging from high-yield seeds to agricultural biotechnology to even the Internet of Things.

While progress is being made, consumers in many wealthy nations are demanding that their food be grown using organic farming principles. At a time when the world cannot falter on the path to increasing its food production, these habits can have severe consequences. Some consumers rationalize their purchasing decisions by claiming the health benefits of organic food (which have been thoroughly debunked), the avoidance of health risks associated with genetically modified foods (with which the scientific consensus disagrees), or the more environmentally friendly and sustainable approach to agriculture that organic farming enables.

The last argument might seem the most plausible. After all, organic farming forbids the use of synthetic pesticides, biotechnology, and many (but not all) pesticides. Unfortunately for Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFM  ) shoppers, the argument doesn't quite hold up, according to shocking numbers compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Ouch, organic!
Is organic farming really the most sustainable form of agriculture? To answer that, we need to define the word "sustainable" from an environmental point of view. Go ahead, take a minute to think about what the word really means. I'll wait.

If you cheated and looked in a dictionary, then you would have found something similar to this:
  • involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources
  • able to last or continue for a long time
That would mean that the most sustainable agricultural methods would maintain natural resources, or in this case, land, to which all other natural resources -- water, soil, energy input, fertilizer use, and the like -- are dependent upon. To use land and derivative natural resources as sustainably as possible requires using the least input to produce the most food. So, how does organic farming stack up?

Not so well, according to numbers from the USDA. When the department logged yield data (food produced per acre) from various crops grown organically, government researchers found that they severely underperformed the same crops grown with more traditional farming methods.

Organic Crop
% of the Overall Average Yield Produced by Traditional Farming
Corn
71%
Soybeans
66%
Spring Wheat
47%
Grapes
51%
Apples
88%
Oranges
43%
Potatoes
72%
Source: Analysis of USDA data by Dr. Steven Savage.

It's important to note that "traditional farming methods" means the crops were aided by synthetic fertilizers and approved pesticides, but not necessarily biotechnology (for instance, genetically modified wheat is not grown commercially). Will the world really be better off with organic farming if it requires substantially more land to produce the same amount of food? The table above doesn't scream environmental stewardship to me.

So, that's it, game over for organic food investments, right? Not quite.

Wait, there's a catch?
Organic farming may not enable comparable yields to traditional farming, but that doesn't mean investors are left without opportunities. The trend in organic food sales hints that opportunity does indeed exist, even if it's fueled in large part by outsize marketing budgets, a fundamental information gap, or, worst of all, misinformation.
Source: USDA website.

Whole Foods Market embodies the trend perfectly, as the company's stock price, annual revenue, and annual earnings per share have roared higher in the same period.
WFM Total Return Price Chart

The profits and returns at Whole Foods Market may be the only organic yields capable of rising in the future, considering the farming method prohibits the use of some of the most proven yield-boosting technologies. However, the trend is unlikely to stop anytime soon, as more and more groceries, restaurants, and farmers take advantage of consumer habits. Even the USDA is joining in after it recently allocated $13 million to help small organic farmers offset the cost or organic certification, which could fund over one-third of application costs.

Organic farming may never feed the world, but it appears to have a role in the future of farming. Congratulations, America. You get to keep your organic food.

What does it mean to you?
Many investors have adopted socially responsible investing practices in an attempt to ensure that they're growing their hard-earned money in ways that don't step on the little guy. After viewing the USDA data on organic crop yields above, I would take it one step further. To ensure your hard-earned money is growing in ways that don't step on the little guy or foster a mistrust of science, you should adopt scientifically responsible investing principles (it often overlaps with its socially responsible cousin). Those extra 1 billion humans who have enough food in the year 2050 will thank you.

How to invest in the technology fueling the U.S. energy boom
As the price of oil plummets, savvy investors are looking for a way to invest in this new energy dynamic. And there's one high-caliber company in the oil-services sector using advanced technology to profit from the U.S. oil boom. Given the country's ongoing quest to extract more and more oil, I strongly urge you to claim your copy of our brand-new investigative report on this company helping fuel its boom. Simply click here for access.

Confession of a liberal, organic food consumer and scientist: ‘I support GMOs’

| February 17, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Project | Original link:  http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/17/confession-of-a-liberal-organic-food-consumer-and-scientist-i-support-gmos/
 
Screen Shot 2015-02-17 at 11.47.05 AM
I love organic foods. My favorite local restaurant serves only organic food and I frequent it several times a week. The chefs are wonderful; food is fresh, local and delicious. While more expensive than other foods, I am blessed with the resources to eat there. My “significant other” cooks and eats only organic and I love her food. I eat these foods because they taste good. I don’t con myself into thinking they differ nutritionally (I am familiar with the Stanford University meta-study). And from my colleagues who work in the area of sustainable agriculture, I am well aware of the bacterial outbreaks from fecal material in organic foods. I know organic foods are not completely safe, but safe enough.

I eat organic foods because I enjoy them. I also like free range eggs. I like the dark yellow yolk although I try not to think about the fact that roaming chickens like to pick at animal droppings on the ground when they eat.

I grew up on a small to medium sized farm in Indiana. We had a cow, a riding horse, some chickens, some sheep and some hogs. We raised corn and hay. My mother had two large gardens. Hogs roamed the fields and were birthed in small barns for each sow. We spread manure on the fields, installed terraces to minimize soil erosion and didn’t use herbicides. I attended college at Purdue University and the University of Wisconsin.

My confession: I am a strong proponent of genetically engineered foods. My position comes from two perspectives: (a) growing up on a farm and remaining an active family member in its operations and (b) being a professor of Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Florida.

At Wisconsin, I received a PhD in Genetics. I then joined the faculty at Florida in January 1974. This was about the time restriction enzymes were being discovered. These enzymes allowed the synthesis of recombinant DNA molecules. I remember the moratorium scientists placed on this technology and watched the scientists develop safety practices for the manipulation of recombinant DNA. Soon after this discovery, methods were developed to insert these recombinant DNA molecules into other organisms. Scientists again developed methodologies for the safe study of these recombinant organisms. Hence my career has spanned the time of plant biotechnology. I have watched and participated from the beginning.

I strongly support this technology for one main reason. Plant improvement programs are needed to feed a growing human population in the face of climate change on a smaller carbon footprint. Biotechnology is simply a technique that can be used for plant improvement. It provides food for hungry people and keeps food prices as low as possible for all of us. I should also mention that this technology allows us scientists to gain a much deeper understanding of how plants work.

The criticisms of this technology have been mind boggling, bewildering and frustrating. I suspect that most criticisms come from people with a political or checkbook agenda but I could be wrong. In my view, each of the popular criticisms of this technology has a fatal flaw and can be dismissed with a few scientific facts and common sense. I address the main ones below.

GMO foods put more pesticides into our food and hence should be banned or at least labeled

There is the famous study published in 1990 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by Dr. Bruce Ames and colleagues showing that most human carcinogens or cancer causing chemicals come from pesticides in food. Many scientists cite this paper. However, what is often omitted from the public discussion is that Ames and his colleagues noted that that 99% plus of the cancer causing pesticides are not added by man; rather, they are synthesized by the plant. That plants produce pesticides makes sense because plants cannot get up and move when they are in danger. Plants that do not evolve such defense mechanisms go the way of the dodo bird.

Pesticides differ of course in their toxicity. One pesticide produced by some plants is the very toxic molecule cyanide. When an insect chews on a plant tissue, cell integrity is lost and the enzyme making cyanide is mixed with the substrate for this toxin. So, here is the question I ask myself: Would I want to eat a food plant that protects itself by producing cyanide or by producing the Bt protein engineered into soybean, corn and potato seeds to protect against certain destructive insects? The Bt protein has been used by the organic industry for years and is considered safe by them. But many critics advocate banning or at least labeling plants producing the BT protein. I will take Bt over cyanide any day of the week.

Herbicide resistant genes lead to super weeds and hence should be banned or at least labeled

That weeds resistant to glyphosate (originally sold under the Monsanto trade name Roundup) now exist is a fact. The evolution of so-called ‘super weeds’ was predicted. Spraying weeds with a weed killer provides a phenomenal selection screen for the rare resistant plant. While mutation occurs at extremely low rates, the rare resistant plants have a huge selective advantage. They grow and reproduce with virtually no competition. Perhaps a good analogy is the past overuse of antibiotics and the selection of antibiotic resistant microbes in hospitals.

The point often forgotten in this debate is that it is irrelevant where the resistance gene in the food plant came from. It could be a transgene or it could be a rare mutation the breeders selected in that plant species. Selection is selection and Mother Nature really doesn’t care where the gene came from. The history of traditional plant improvement and breeding programs is filled with cases of weeds or pests overcoming the man-selected resistance in the plant because of a rare mutation occurring in the weed or bug.

Roundup resistant plants cause cancer and early death and hence should be banned or at least labeled

Many critics of crop biotechnology highlight the work of French scientist and anti-GMO campaigner Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues that purportedly demonstrated that corn containing the Roundup Ready gene and sprayed with glyphosate causes cancer and early death in rats. This work is highly controversial; was published, then retracted and then published in a pay-to-publish journal. Major criticisms have been detailed elsewhere. Those of the anti-GMO crowd argue that the retraction was caused by undue pressure from the food, chemical and seed industries.

One approach is simply to accept Séralini’s conclusions and ask if they apply or have predictive value to other animals. Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam and colleagues at the University California, Davis did just that and concluded in a massive review of data that there was no adverse effect. Their meta-analysis involved millions of farm animals, a sample size infinitely larger than that used by Séralini and associates.

On our home farm we now produce and sell about 13,000 hogs per year (a number also larger by several orders of magnitude compared to the Séralini rat study). Before 1996 they ate only non-GMO feeds; now they eat 100% GMO feeds. The health and the production of our hogs are at an all-time high. By any common sense comparison the Séralini study comes up wanting.

Adding any new gene to a plant is dangerous, just wrong and should not be allowed or at least labeled

No doubt the strongest criticism of the new gene technology is that it is just wrong. It is unnatural. It is not the way Mother Nature intended it to be. Each organism has its own set of genes and that’s it. But when we look to the products of Mother Nature, we find a totally different picture. Because of newly developed techniques of gene technology, we now know that there are genes NOT found in all members of the species. In corn, which is my research focus, there are thousands of genes found in some but not all corn plants. In fact, “factories” located within the plant itself are now known to make new genes. The new genes are composed of pieces of old genes and are put together haphazardly. Hence, we have always been eating foods containing brand new — but totally uncharacterized —genes.

The only thing different about genes inserted by man is that we study them extensively and therefore we know what they do, whether their products are allergenic and whether they have affect composition. I will take the latter type any day of the week. In other words, we can monitor what the “man-inserted” gene can do because we know what that gene is. We cannot monitor the genes the plant inserts simply because, until recently, we didn’t know this type of plus/minus gene polymorphism existed.

Plant biotechnology allows companies to patent life and hence should be banned

Often I hear the criticism that seeds (any seed) should be free to everyone to save and palnt. It’s said that farmers have the right to the seed they produce. The argument goes that biotechnology and the companies that produce GMO seeds changed all of that, that farmers and plant growers lost their rights because of biotechnology.

Regardless of the validity of the argument concerning lost rights, let us be clear that this so-called “loss” was not caused by biotechnology. President Hubert Hoover signed into law the Plant Protection Act — in 1930. It allowed for the patenting of seeds. The argument for this was that companies had invested lots of time, effort and money to produce superior plants. Because one could reproduce this superior material simply by growing it, seed companies were not receiving any reimbursement for their years of risky and expensive research.

Analogies to the present day software industry are obvious. Similar arguments supported the Plant Variety Protection Act that was signed in 1970. It is important to note that seed companies must be proactive in protecting the plants they develop and unique genes combinations that resulted from years of research and effort. They must file all the paperwork for these patents. Some companies producing for example soybean varieties did not file for patent protection and hence farmers were free to save and replant these plant materials. Corn on the other hand exhibits something called inbreeding depression (the same reason you do not marry your first cousin) so farmers learned a long time ago that saved seed did not perform nearly as well as the seed they bought from the seed company.

People have the right to know whether their foods contain genes inserted by man

Anti-GMO groups point to polls saying that the vast majority of the people want their food labelled. (There is also a poll showing that just as many people want their food labeled if it contains DNA!! That is why I am investing my retirement funds in companies selling DNA free salt!!). The antis argue that while the government says these foods are safe, they base their conclusions on data furnished by the company wanting to sell the plant—an allegation refuted by most scientific groups. Interestingly, so far, when labelling laws have appeared on state ballots they are generally defeated. So there seems to be a disconnect between polling and balloting results.

In my mind, the “big unknown” in all of this is the cost of labeling. Plant ingredients would have to be segregated from harvest on. This would be hugely expensive. Also, what level of contamination is acceptable? The idea of GMO-free is simply not in the cards. To guarantee a food lacks a transgene is impossible. The only way to make sure every single tomato, ear of corn, head of lettuce, etc. lacks a transgene would require that every single tomato, ear of corn, head of lettuce, etc. be sampled. Because these tests are destructive, no produce would be left to sell.

How do we test for transgenes? Early in the history of plant biotechnology, virtually all transgenes contained some common DNA sequences. These sequences could be then used for identification. In contrast the newer transgenes lack these sequences so older tests will not detect them.

Are there lists available for all the transgenes placed into foods? While only a few transgenes have been “deregulated” for commercial use, there have been literally thousands of genes placed into each of the major crops for experimental purposes. Do we have to test for each one of them? If so, is there a list of all these genes? I think not.

What type of infrastructure would be required to quickly test all foods we consume? Having experience in the area, I know it would be huge and terribly expensive. How do we handle perishable produce? The delay required for testing fruits and vegetables will have significant negative effects on the sweetness and flavor of the produce. Is that what the consumers want?

Do farmers really want government inspectors and samplers out in their fields? Most farmers, especially the organic ones, are pretty independent and want to do things their way. I seriously doubt if they want “government people” in their fields.

Personally, I just don’t’ think society would want or will pay for the system outlined above. Perhaps I am wrong, too pessimistic, too connected to the science and technology. Maybe enough people want (and will pay) to have their foods labeled. Maybe the best solution then is for society to figure out the level of GM mix they will tolerate and pass the law. Then let the private sector take over. Companies can sell foods with a label that gives the probability that this food contains a transgene at a percentage equal to or less than that determined by the voice of the people. If people want it and will pay for it, the company will do well. If people don’t want to pay for it, the label will disappear.

The advantage to such a voluntary label is that people (like me) who don’t want to have to pay more for their food won’t have to. In contrast, mandatory labelling requires everyone to pay regardless of their need for the information.

These are interesting times. From a personal perspective, my life would have been much simpler (and just fine) had recombinant DNA and transformation systems not been invented. But that is not the world we live in. We now have a technology that can do many many good things for society. I look forward to the time that all of these nonsensical arguments disappear and we can put 100% of our efforts into using (rather than defending) the new technology.

Curtis Hannah is a University of Florida Research Foundation professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department focusing on molecular biology and plant genetics. Contact him at channah@ufl.edu

Environmental impact of meat production



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The environmental impact of meat production varies because of the wide variety of agricultural practices employed around the world. All agriculture practices have been found to have a variety of effects on the environment. Some of the environmental effects that have been associated with meat production are pollution through fossil fuel usage, and water and land consumption. Meat is obtained through a variety of methods, including organic farming, free range farming, intensive livestock production, subsistence agriculture, hunting and fishing. As part of the conclusion to one of the largest international assessments of animal agriculture ever undertaken, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations said:
The livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gasses and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.

Consumption and production trends

Consequences for the environment can result from changes in the amount of production to meet changes in demand for consumption. It has been estimated that global meat consumption may double from 2000 to 2050, mostly as a consequence of increasing world population, but also partly because of increased per capita meat consumption (with much of the per capita consumption increase occurring in the developing world).[1] Global production and consumption of poultry meat have recently been growing at more than 5 percent annually.[1] Trends vary among livestock sectors. For example, global per capita consumption of pork has increased recently (almost entirely due to changes in consumption within China), but global per capita consumption of ruminant meats has been declining.[1]

Grazing and land use


Dryland grazing on the Great Plains in Colorado

In comparison with grazing, intensive livestock production requires large quantities of harvested feed. The growing of cereals for feed in turn requires substantial areas of land. However, where grain is fed, less feed is required for meat production. This is due not only to the higher concentration of metabolizable energy in grain than in roughages, but also to the higher ratio of net energy of gain to net energy of maintenance where metabolizable energy intake is higher.[2] A pound of beef (live weight) requires about seven pounds of feed, compared to more than three pounds for a pound of pork and less than two pounds for a pound of chicken.[3] However, assumptions about feed quality are implicit in such generalizations. For example, production of a pound of beef cattle live weight may require between 4 and 5 pounds of feed high in protein and metabolizable energy content, or more than 20 pounds of feed of much lower quality.[2]

Free-range animal production requires land for grazing, which in some places has led to land use change. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere."[4] This for example has implications for meat consumption in Europe, which imports significant amounts of feed from Brazil.[5]

Raising animals for human consumption accounts for approximately 40% of the total amount of agricultural output in industrialized countries. Grazing occupies 26% of the earth's ice-free terrestrial surface, and feed crop production uses about one third of all arable land.[6]

Land quality decline is sometimes associated with overgrazing. Rangeland health classification reflects soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity.[7] By the end of 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management had evaluated rangeland health on 7,437 grazing allotments (i.e. 35 percent of its grazing allotments or 36 percent of the land area contained in its grazing allotments) and found that 16 percent of these failed to meet rangeland health standards due to existing grazing practices or levels of grazing use. This led the BLM to infer that a similar percentage would be obtained when such evaluations were completed.[8] Soil erosion associated with overgrazing is an important issue in many dry regions of the world.[6] However, on US farmland, much less soil erosion is associated with pastureland used for livestock grazing than with land used for production of crops. Sheet and rill erosion is within estimated soil loss tolerance on 95.1 percent, and wind erosion is within estimated soil loss tolerance on 99.4 percent of US pastureland inventoried by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service.[9]

Environmental effects of grazing can be positive or negative, depending on the quality of management, [10] and grazing can have different effects on different soils [11] and different plant communities.[12] Grazing sometimes reduces, but sometimes increases biodiversity of grassland ecosystems.[13][14] A study comparing virgin grasslands under some grazed and nongrazed management systems in the US indicated somewhat lower soil organic carbon but higher soil nitrogen content with grazing.[15] In contrast, at the High Plains Grasslands Research Station in Wyoming, the top 30 cm of soil contained more organic carbon as well as more nitrogen on grazed pastures than on grasslands where livestock were excluded.[16] Similarly, on previously eroded soil in the Piedmont region of the US, pasture establishment with well-managed grazing of livestock resulted in high rates of both carbon and nitrogen sequestration relative to results obtained where grass was grown without grazing.[17] Such increases in carbon and nitrogen sequestration can help mitigate greenhouse gas emission effects. In some cases, ecosystem productivity may be increased due to grazing effects on nutrient cycling.[18]

Water resources

Estimated virtual water requirements
for various crops (m³ water/ton crop)[19]
Hoekstra
& Hung
(2003)
Chapagain
& Hoekstra
(2003)
Zimmer
& Renault
(2003)
Oki
et al.
(2003)
Average
Beef 15977 13500 20700 16726
Pork 5906 4600 5900 5469
Cheese 5288 5288
Poultry 2828 4100 4500 3809
Eggs 4657 2700 3200 3519
Rice 2656 1400 3600 2552
Soybeans 2300 2750 2500 2517
Wheat 1150 1160 2000 1437
Maize 450 710 1900 1020
Milk 865 790 560 738
Potatoes 160 105 133

Virtual water use for livestock production includes water used in producing feed. However, virtual water use data, such as those shown in the table, are often unrelated to environmental impacts of water use. For example, in a high-rainfall area, if similar soil infiltration capacity is maintained across different land uses, mm of groundwater recharge and hence sustainability of water use tends to be about the same for food crop production, meat-yielding livestock production, and saddle horse production, although virtual water use per kg of food produced may be several hundred L, several thousand L, and an infinite number of L, respectively. In contrast, in some low-rainfall areas, some livestock production is more sustainable than food crop production, from a water use standpoint, despite higher virtual water use per kg of food produced. This is because unirrigated land in many water-short areas may support grassland ecosystems in perpetuity, and thus may be able to support well-managed, extensive production of grazing cattle or sheep with a sustainable level of water use, even where large-scale production of more water-demanding food crops would be unsustainable in the long run due to inadequate surface water supplies and inadequate groundwater recharge to sustain a high level of withdrawn water use for irrigation. Such considerations are important on much rangeland in western North America and elsewhere that can support cow-calf operations, backgrounding of stocker cattle, and sheep flocks. In the US, withdrawn surface water and groundwater use for crop irrigation exceeds that for livestock by about a ratio of 60:1.[20]

Also, the high virtual water use figures associated with meat production do not necessarily imply reduction of water use if food crops are produced, instead of livestock. For example, some grazing lands are unsuitable for food crop production, so that evapotranspirational water use would continue on land vacated by livestock, while additional water would be needed for crops to provide substituting food from lands elsewhere, and additional water would also be needed to produce substitutes for the non-food products of livestock. (In the US, Land Capability Classes V, VI and VII contain soils unsuited for cultivation, much of which is suitable for grazing. Of non-federal land in the US, about 43 percent is classed as unsuitable for cultivation.)[21]

Irrigation accounts for about 37 percent of US withdrawn freshwater use, and groundwater provides about 42 percent of US irrigation water.[20] Irrigation water applied in production of livestock feed and forage has been estimated to account for about 9 percent of withdrawn freshwater use in the United States.[22] Groundwater depletion is a concern in some areas because of sustainability issues (and in some cases, land subsidence and/or saltwater intrusion).[23] A particularly important North American example where depletion is occurring involves the High Plains (Ogallala) Aquifer, which underlies about 174,000 square miles in parts of eight states, and supplies 30 percent of the groundwater withdrawn for irrigation in the US.[24] Some irrigated livestock feed production is not hydrologically sustainable in the long run because of aquifer depletion. However, rainfed agriculture, which cannot deplete its water source, produces much of the livestock feed in North America. Corn (maize) is of particular interest, accounting for about 91.8 percent of the grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2010.[25]:table 1–75 About 14 percent of US corn-for grain land is irrigated, accounting for about 17 percent of US corn-for-grain production, and about 13 percent of US irrigation water use,[26][27] but only about 40 percent of US corn grain is fed to US livestock and poultry.[25]:table 1–38 Together, these figures indicate that most production of grain used for US livestock and poultry feed does not deplete water resources and that irrigated production of grain for livestock feed accounts for a small fraction of US irrigation water use. However, where production relies on irrigation from groundwater reserves, water table monitoring is appropriate to provide timely warning if groundwater depletion occurs.

Effects on aquatic ecosystems

In the Western United States many stream and riparian habitats have been negatively affected by livestock grazing. This has resulted in increased phosphates, nitrates, decreased dissolved oxygen, increased temperature, turbidity, and eutrophication events, and reduced species diversity.[28][29]
Livestock management options for riparian protection include salt and mineral placement, limiting seasonal access, use of alternative water sources, provision of "hardened" stream crossings, herding, and fencing.[30][31][32] In the Eastern United States waste release from pork farms have also been shown to cause large-scale eutrophication of bodies of water, including the Mississippi River and Atlantic Ocean (Palmquist, et al., 1997). However, in North Carolina, where Palmquist's study was done, measures have since been taken to reduce risk of accidental discharges from manure lagoons; also, since then there is evidence of improved environmental management in US hog production.[33] Implementation of manure and wastewater management planning can help assure low risk of problematic discharge into aquatic systems. (See Animal Waste section, below.)

Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions


Farmer ploughing rice paddy, in Indonesia. Animals can provide a useful source of draught power to farmers in the developing world

At a global scale, the FAO has recently estimated that livestock (including poultry) accounts for about 14.5 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions estimated as 100-year CO2 equivalents.[34] (A previous, widely cited FAO report had estimated 18 percent.[6] FAO's new report provides information on this difference in the supplementary material of its latter report, stating: "All manure emissions were accounted for in [the previous report], but only emissions related to manure management and manure application on feed crops or pasture are accounted for in this report" and "The [previous report's] assessment includes GHG emissions related to the production of feed (including pasture) fed to all animal species [...], whereas this report only accounts for feed materials fed to the studied species.") Because this emission percentage includes contributions associated with livestock used for production of draft power, eggs, wool and dairy products, the percentage attributable to meat production alone is significantly lower[citation needed]. The indirect effects contributing to this percentage include emissions associated with production of feed consumed by livestock and carbon dioxide emission from deforestation in Central and South America, attributed to livestock production. Mitigation options for reducing methane emission from ruminant enteric fermentation include genetic selection, immunization, rumen defaunation, diet modification and grazing management, among others.[35][36][37] The principal mitigation strategies identified for reduction of agricultural nitrous oxide emission are avoiding over-application of nitrogen fertilizers and adopting suitable manure management practices.[38][39] Mitigation strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the livestock sector include adopting more efficient production practices to reduce agricultural pressure for deforestation (notably in Latin America), reducing fossil fuel consumption, and increasing carbon sequestration in soils.[34]

At a national level, livestock represents up to half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions.[40] Livestock sources (including enteric fermentation and manure) account for about 3.1 percent of US anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, according to US EPA figures compiled using UNFCCC methodologies.[41] Not all forms of meat and animal–based foods affect the environment equally. One study estimates that red meats are 150% more greenhouse gas intensive than chicken or fish.[42] According to another research group, the ranking of some food products in relation to greenhouse gas emissions is lamb (#1), beef (#2), cheese (#3), and pork (#4).[43] However, such ranking may not be broadly representative. Among sheep production systems, for example, there are very large differences in both energy use[44] and prolificacy;[45] both factors strongly influence emissions per kg of lamb production.

Testing Australian sheep for exhaled methane production (2001), CSIRO

Because a large fraction of GHG emissions attributed to livestock production involves methane (from enteric fermentation and manure management), care is appropriate in considering contributions of these emissions to global warming. Relative to carbon dioxide, atmospheric methane has a 100-year global warming potential of 25 (including indirect effects on ozone and stratospheric water vapor).[46] Methane emission from livestock and other anthropogenic sources has contributed substantially to past warming; however, it is of much less significance for current and recent warming. This is because there has been relatively little increase in atmospheric methane concentration in recent years,[46][47][48] with total methane sources, estimated at 582 Tg per year, being nearly balanced by methane sinks, estimated at 581 Tg per year.[46] In a tabulation by the IPCC, estimates of methane emission from global livestock range from 80 to 115 Tg per year.[49]

Data of a USDA study indicate that about 0.9 percent of energy use in the United States is accounted for by raising food-producing livestock and poultry. In this context, energy use includes energy from fossil, nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, technological solar, and wind sources. (It excludes solar energy captured by photosynthesis, used in hay drying, etc.) The estimated energy use in agricultural production includes embodied energy in purchased inputs.[50]

Intensification and other changes in the livestock industries influence energy use, emissions and other environmental effects of meat production. For example, in the US beef production system, practices prevailing in 2007 are estimated to have involved 8.6 percent less fossil fuel use, 16.3 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, 12.1 percent less water use and 33.0 percent less land use, per unit mass of beef produced, than in 1977.[51] These figures are based on analysis taking into account feed production, feedlot practices, forage-based cow-calf operations, backgrounding before cattle enter a feedlot, and production of culled dairy cows.

Animal waste

Unless well managed, manure and other substances from livestock operations may cause water contamination. Concerns about such problems are particularly acute in the case of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). In the US, a permit for a CAFO requires implementation of a plan for management of manure nutrients, contaminants, wastewater, etc., as applicable, to meet requirements under the Clean Water Act.[52] There are over 12,000 regulated CAFOs in the US.[53]
Environmental performance of the US livestock industry can be compared with several other industries. The US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has published 5-year and 1-year data for 32 industries on their ratios of enforcement orders to inspections, a measure of non-compliance with environmental regulations: principally, those under Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. For the livestock industry, inspections focused primarily on CAFOs. Of the 31 other industries, 4 (including crop production) had a better 5-year environmental record than the livestock industry, 2 had a similar record, and 25 had a worse record in this respect. For the most recent year of the five-year compilation, livestock production and dry cleaning had the best environmental records of the 32 industries, each with an enforcement order/inspection ratio of 0.01. For crop production, the ratio was 0.02. Of the 32 industries, oil and gas extraction and the livestock industry had the lowest percentages of facilities with violations. [54] Regulatory enforcement for CAFOs is a priority of the EPA, and EPA enforcement in fiscal 2010 included 21 actions against CAFOs for such violations as failure to obtain a permit, failure to operate according to the terms of a permit, and contamination of water.[55]

With good management, manure has environmental benefits. Manure deposited on pastures by grazing animals themselves is applied efficiently for maintaining soil fertility. Animal manures are also commonly collected from barns and concentrated feeding areas for efficient re-use of many nutrients in crop production, sometimes after composting. For many areas with high livestock density, manure application substantially replaces application of synthetic fertilizers on surrounding cropland. Manure was spread as a fertilizer on about 15.8 million acres of US cropland in 2006.[56] Manure is also spread on forage-producing land that is grazed, rather than cropped. Altogether, in 2007, manure was applied on about 22.1 million acres in the United States.[27] Substitution of animal manure for synthetic fertilizer has important implications for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, considering that between about 43 and 88 MJ (i.e. between about 10 and 21 Mcal) of fossil fuel energy are used per kg of N in production of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.[57]

Manure can also have environmental benefit as a renewable energy source, in digester systems yielding biogas for heating and/or electricity generation. Manure biogas operations can be found in Asia,[58] Europe,[59][60] North America, and elsewhere. The US EPA estimates that as of July 2010, 157 manure digester systems for biogas energy were in operation on commercial-scale US livestock facilities.[61] System cost is substantial, relative to US energy values, which may be a deterrent to more widespread use, although additional factors, such as odor control and carbon credits, may improve benefit /cost ratios.[62]

Effects on wildlife

Grazing (especially, overgrazing) may detrimentally affect certain wildlife species, e.g. by altering cover and food supplies. However, habitat modification by livestock grazing can also benefit some wildlife species. For example, in North America, various studies have found that grazing sometimes improves habitat for elk,[63] blacktailed prairie dogs,[64] sage grouse,[65] mule deer,[66][67] and numerous other species. A survey of refuge managers on 123 National Wildlife Refuges in the US tallied 86 species of wildlife considered positively affected and 82 considered negatively affected by refuge cattle grazing or haying.[68] Such mixed effects suggest that wildlife diversity may be enhanced and maintained by grazing livestock in some places while excluding livestock in some places. The kind of grazing system employed (e.g. rest-rotation, deferred grazing, HILF grazing) is often important in achieving grazing benefits for particular wildlife species.[69]

Beneficial environmental effects

Among other environmental benefits of meat production is conversion of materials that might otherwise be wasted, to produce high-protein food. For example, Elferink et al. state that "Currently, 70 % of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the food processing industry."[70] US examples of "waste" conversion with regard to grain include feeding livestock the distillers grains (with solubles) remaining from ethanol production. For the marketing year 2009/2010, dried distillers grains used as livestock feed (and residual) in the US amounted to 25.0 million metric tons.[71] Much soy meal used as livestock feed is produced from material left after extraction of the soybean oil used in foods and in production of biodiesel, soaps and industrial fatty acids.[72] Similarly, canola meal for livestock feed is produced from material left after oil extraction (for food and biodiesel) from canola seed.[73] Examples with regard to roughages include straw from barley and wheat crops (feedable especially to large-ruminant breeding stock when on maintenance diets),[2][74][75] and corn stover.[76][77] Also, small-ruminant flocks in North America (and elsewhere) are sometimes used on fields for removal of various crop residues inedible by humans, converting them to food.

There are environmental benefits of meat-producing small ruminants for control of specific invasive or noxious weeds (such as spotted knapweed, tansy ragwort, leafy spurge, yellow starthistle, tall larkspur, etc.) on rangeland. Small ruminants are also useful for vegetation management in forest plantations, and for clearing brush on rights-of-way. These represent food-producing alternatives to herbicide use.[78]

Authorship of the Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...