Impact of meat on the environment

[Aaron]

p.s.

Not many people know about the study...but the "carrot screams louder than the cow." They may have been hooked to a polygraph type of equipment...when the carrot was pulled out of the ground, it made more of an energetic ruckus than the cow being killed.

The carrot was at less peace than the cow.

By posting this, I'm not saying I think it is better to eat beef than a carrot, just bring things into perspective and this test I believe was actually done and is a real classic.

[Radiant_Science]

Good point

@Aaron...I totally see what your saying, and I agree it's probably more of a guesstimation...and, I do know what "their" plan is regarding energy and pollution taxation policed by youth brigades...trust me, I got my ear to the track.

However, a cow has 3 stomachs and eats very large quantities (practically all day) of low nutrition high cellulose food (grasses), which breaks down in a completely anaerobic environment (average human eats what, a cup or two of fiber a day?)...so they produce a relatively large quantity of Methane which is a much better "blanketing" greenhouse gas.

According to Donald Johnson, an animal-nutrition specialist at Colorado State University
"Each cow emits 200 to 400 quarts of methane gas per day, or 50 million metric tons per year"

Now that's a lot of hot wind

[rickoff]

To Aaron:

Just last night I saw The Day the Earth Stood Still - the remake - I couldn't argue with the aliens that they wanted to destroy the humans in order to save the planet...what a concept! If the planet dies...the humans will surely die... if the humans die...the planet has a chance!

I like the way they packaged the original movie along with the new remake. I actually liked the original better - even in black & white it was a classier film.

I agree with your choice of salmon as a first rate food. We have it at least once a week at our home. Sea scallops and Maine lobster are also favorites here.

As to the cow problem, this seems to pose quite a dilemma. If we go on eating them in large numbers, then the cattle industry will keep producing them in large numbers to meet the demand. On the other hand, what if we all stopped eating them tomorrow? What would then become of the millions of cattle which will not be eaten? The cattle ranchers couldn't afford to keep feeding them if they can't be sold at market. So what would they do? Shoot them, and bury or burn them, or perhaps turn them loose to fend for themselves?

As mad cow disease becomes more prevalent, I think it will cause more and more people to increasingly avoid beef, deer, and moose meat. This will have the effect of greatly reducing cattle herds as well as human populations. This may be Nature's way of saving our planet.

Rick

[rickoff]

Re: methane gas

[quote=Radiant_Science;52765
According to Donald Johnson, an animal-nutrition specialist at Colorado State University, "Each cow emits 200 to 400 quarts of methane gas per day, or 50 million metric tons per year"

Now that's a lot of hot wind [/quote]

I wonder why that vast resource hasn't been tapped? After all, they use milking machines to gather milk, which is then stored and transported. Why not save all the gas too? Just pop in those butt plugs and hook up some tubing, etc. It would allow the farmers to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery free, and there would obviously be huge amounts of methane left over that they could sell to fuel all our cars and trucks. Best of all, its a renewable energy.

Rick

[lighty]

The problem with this discussion is not the moral issue (since by it's definition moral is arbitrary category), it is not the spiritual issue (since all of the great spiritual persons in history were meat eaters) so we come down do scientific issues.

So let's discuss with arguments:

1. Tesla was eccentric who was often proven wrong in many of his beliefs both in philosophical and scientific sense. I will give a few examples that can easily be verified. He doubted Hertzian waves will come into wider use- almost all that we use today are Hertzian waves. He recommended the science of eugenics and selective breeding of humans in order to create healthier and more intellectual civilization - I won't even go into morals of that one. He was very convinced X-Rays are not harmful aside from their being able to produce nitric acid- no comment on that one. He claimed that no energy can be gained by splitting an atom- boy was he wrong. He spoke about matriarchal society and how women would end wars - looking at nowadays female politicians he was obviously wrong. He tried eradicating all of the bacteria near people as he was mortaly afraid of them- we now know that without bacteria in our digestive system we would be dead. He chastised women who were even a little overweight - he even fired one of his secretaries on ground of her being overweight. He was never able to accomplish a deeper interpersonal relationship - but he was obsessed with one dove to the point of insanity. He claimed that with more scarier weapons humanity would abolish war, he even proposed various technologies just for that purpose - well, the nuclear weapons are here to stay and the world is still in war.

So, why would his babbling (from scientific point of view) about vegetarianism be taken as anything other than delusions of a man who was a genius in the field of EE and to extent in fluid dynamics. His arguments are weak as best and totally unscientific in any modern sense.


2. As for the cows producing most of the methane, between 15-30% of the yearly methane production comes from big rice fields in Asia. Should all Asians abstain from eating rice? No matter what food one grows (including animals for food) when one grows it on a scale that can feed overpopulated Earth there is always going to be environmental impact. There is too much of us on Earth, it's as simple as that.

3. Somebody mentioned soya and soya milk. Historically soya in Asia was almost exclusively used for feeding livestock (that were raised for their milk and meat). After the WW2 it was western science who suggested growing soya for human diet. So what have we learned from over 50 years of that scientific experiment? Soya produces enzymes which are very close in composition to human oestrogen. So, female menstrual cycles are often going haywire and male organism have adverse reaction to something that is not even supposed to be part of their metabolism. Soya milk is notorious for being a major contributor in the development of osteoporosis since it's very good for binding calcium and effectively flushing it from organism. I won't even go about all of the new allergies developed by people who eat much soya in their diet.


So, scientifically there is absolutely no reasons for being vegetarian. Spiritual reasons are obviously misguided from historical point of view. So everything gets down to the extreme anthropomorphising of everything about natural processes in the Earth's biosphere. Many of vegetarians and animal rights activists would have no second thought about harming a human being if it would mean saving another poor Bambi. Well, let me tell you something is very wrong with that picture.

Every living thing have a right for decent treatment but that doesn't change its role in the biosphere processes in nature. So, raising of animals for food should of course be as humane as possible but make no mistake they still have their role in the natural cycle. Pretty much the same way bacteria or meat eating animals won't have much dilemma about eating your body when you die. Oh, but we even learned to cheat nature on that one as well so we get cremated or embalmed- why not separate ourselves even further from the natural cycles. Why not put Tesla's plans into working and have artificial daylight over the whole Earth 24 hours a day? Of course it would kill Earth very quickly but we won't feel uncomfortable during the night.

Come on people, we are a part of Earth's biosphere and its life cycle. That life cycle includes living and dying. It also includes that all living beings eat each other (aside from plants but even they eat decaying matter). So, again- either we are part of the life cycle or we are not. There is not third option. Also, there is simply too much of us overpopulating the Earth. There are no easy solutions to those problems. Chinese introduced one child policy for a reason. We can scream all we want against such "monstrous" policy but it will be either that or still raising more plants (more rice more methane) and growing more animals (more cattle more methane). There are no easy choices but idealistic views that vegetarianism would solve everything are just scientifically ignorant for a plethora of reasons. The scientific fact that we are omnivorous, the fact that many plants like soya are harmful to human health, the fact that rice production is one of the major contributors to methane production etc.

Yes it's a personal choice and I respect that but people shouldn't try to hide their reasons behind science because science doesn't work that way.

[anut]

To me, Tesla is a genius. It is okay if you think Tesla was wrong. But what about those scientists like Einstern, Edison, Newton, Vinci, etc, etc? Are they all stupid?


"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security." ---- Einstern


"Flesh eating is unprovoked murder."---- Einstern


"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." --- Thomas Edison


"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men." --- Leonardo da Vinci

[gotoluc]

Gerat men anut ... great men

One must go beyond the physical experience (egoless) to realize the Truth which is never changing.

and to All

Luc

[lighty]

OK, let's see.

Einstein was a genius in its own right. However a great deal of original mathematical calculations were done by his first wife Mileva. I won't even go about Poincare controversy. He never gave credit to either of them or at least some acknowledgement.OK, so he didn't eat meat but he still acted like a bastard so I doubt his ethics could be taken as example.

Thomas Alva Edison was talking about ethics and morality and I should take his words seriously? He was a unscrupulous businessman who cheated a number of people. Tesla was one of them. For me his ethics sucks.

Hitler was also vegetarian. Of course he did it out of necessity because of his illness but one could argue that vegetarian diet should have made him less aggressive and more spiritual. We all know how that went.

As for Leonardo Da Vinci- that quote is not his but was taken out of the fictional book by Dimitri Merejkowski "The Romance of Leonardo da Vinci". There is also no historical records about his diet. It's pretty much as with Tesla, everybody is quoting either his own ramblings when he was old or Vassilatos's books which are full of unsubstantiated conjectures. I would like for someone to point the original historical research in the Da Vinci's diet. It is very unlikely he was a vegetarian but then again to some people he is a sort of demiurg like Tesla.

About Newton's diet I know nothing about so I will abstain from commenting that one.

In any case- I don't have anything against vegetarian beliefs much as I don't have anything against beliefs of creationists. Anybody should be free to believe in anything one wants. Well, as long as they don't claim that they have scientific facts to back them when they most certainly don't. It's as simple as that.

[Aaron]

food impact

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages." --- Thomas Edison

Thomas Edison regularly electrocuted dogs, cats and even an elephant in public demonstrations to scare people away from Tesla's AC because he wanted everyone to stick with his DC power. So he is essentially claiming himself to have no ethics and is calling himself a savage.

Besides all of this, food no matter what what type has environmental impact.

It is believed by some and myself that algae is the food of the future anyway. So we will probably have covered domes growing algae for food, which also is used for fuel at the same time. It can be turned into oil but some algae emits hydrogen as a byproduct of their metabolism...can be captured in an enclosure.

[sigzidfit]

Heros

Cowgirl

YouTube - The Woman Who Thinks Like a Cow - part 1

YouTube - Animals in Translation - How Animals Think and Feel

Cowboy

Ray Hunt - Master of Communication

Shop Ray Hunt items..... dvd's books, clothing and more

Peace
PJ

[sucahyo]

I believe that if people actually chewed their food, they wouldn't have to eat as much. I would take MANY MINUTES to chew one piece of steak to break it down to a paste like consitency so I would absorb it all and would therefore have to eat very little to get my nutrients. This isn't just some idea...that is actually how I eat. I know that by doing that I could get more nutritents out of a couple ounces of steak than the average person eating a half pound steak who chomps on it a few bites and swallows it out of pure gluttony.

Nice tips . Another tips for any vegetarian that eating grass. Cows chew their grass food for hours after they swallow it. It would take a day before the food goes to the stomach. If anyone here eating grass, chew it for a couple of hours before swallowing it, or else your stomach can't absorb it.

Edit:
The point above is not a joke, there must be some reason why herbivore animal eat mostly grass. Maybe grass contain something never studied by scientist. If you avoiding meat, I think you must at least eat what that animal eat in nature, this may include grass, worm, bug, leaf, ant, etc. Use blender if you can't chew that long, but off course blender can change or reduce the nutrition too. Best sambal taste is by grinding not by steel blending, but I don't think electronic grinding would be availlable in store.

Vegetable lost many of it's nutrition if overly boiled, don't overheat it.


About juice like soy milk etc, I dont think this is the best form of consumption. We need fiber, by converting the food to juice, we don't get the fiber, this may introduce some stomach problem. Soy milk is bad for continuous consumption, I would prefer solid form which should taste much better. I can't never be bored with tempe or toffu with so much way of cooking them. Ade Rai as body builder eat tempe in a lot of quantity for keeping his body, he seems to influence some hollywood artist to try it too:
Pikiran Narsis Yang Ngga Penting dan Dodol: O, Tempe, where art thou? (part 2)

Looking at the way Vin Diesel eating it make me want to eat it........


And never make your baby drink soy milk, it is not natural, even cow would not force their child to eat grass or soy right away. If you really concern your child health, give them the mother's milk for two years. I never heard nice story from any parents that give soy milk to their children. Most of them are regret. Don't buy cow's milk from brand that has soy milk too. Or you might forced to convert to soy milk product at around 4 months, usually with asthma.

I wonder why that vast resource hasn't been tapped? After all, they use milking machines to gather milk, which is then stored and transported. Why not save all the gas too? Just pop in those butt plugs and hook up some tubing, etc. It would allow the farmers to fuel their tractors and other farm machinery free, and there would obviously be huge amounts of methane left over that they could sell to fuel all our cars and trucks. Best of all, its a renewable energy.

, that's an "efficient" way of using it lol. getting milk and natural gas at the same time .

I thought biogas is applied in the western industry? Some of the cow raising village here collect the cow's manure in a closed well, put some bactery and then collect the gas to cook. They let the cows to move around so inserting a fart collector is not an option lol.

[Kevin]

Wow! Lots of opinions.

The original post caught my eye.

"Impact of meat on the environment."

I have a couple questions:

Could someone post the source article? (from the NY Times) and/or some other article/verification of the many statements made in the OP.


If the production of meat is taxing the planet resources/health as claimed in this article, would reducing it result in some other tax on the planets resources/health?

TIA

[rickoff]

Reply to sucahyo:

They let the cows to move around so inserting a fart collector is not an option lol.

No problem, sucahyo. Just strap a large inflatable to the cow's back. You just have to be careful to offload the gas before the cows get too light on their feet and start drifting away!

Rick

[anut]

According to this website, Thomas Edison apparently turned vegetarian because of his illness. He probably made his statement in support of vegetarianism after he developed his mastoiditis:

History of Vegetarianism - Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1937)

Quote from Vegetarian Messenger, June 1908: "Mr. Edison a Vegetarian. - During the recent illness, from mastoiditis, of Mr. Thos. Alva Edison, the famous inventor ceased using meat and went for a thorough course of vegetarianism. Mr. Edison was so pleased with the change of diet that, now he has regained his normal health, he continues to renounce meat in all it's forms."

Thomas Edison regularly electrocuted dogs, cats and even an elephant in public demonstrations to scare people away from Tesla's AC because he wanted everyone to stick with his DC power. So he is essentially claiming himself to have no ethics and is calling himself a savage.

Besides all of this, food no matter what what type has environmental impact.

It is believed by some and myself that algae is the food of the future anyway. So we will probably have covered domes growing algae for food, which also is used for fuel at the same time. It can be turned into oil but some algae emits hydrogen as a byproduct of their metabolism...can be captured in an enclosure.

[Vortex]

Fish farms and fish farts.
Beans will require a methane tax and become a luxury.
SOYLENT GREEN is the ONLY answer it seems.