Impact of meat on the environment

[rickoff]

Thanks, Vortex, for your toot for the day.

[tai61]

greenhouse gasses

aaron ,your point of putting humans and other animals into thre flattulance/ greenhouse gas equation would have gone down well here with local farmers as soon they are going to be taxed for animal gas.millions of dollars are ging to be sent to kyoto bank,and what is mr kyoto going to do with the money,buy some more ice caps perhaps any way reserch here is giong to lead to gm. grass that ll produce zero methane.global warming seems to be a scam to add more taxes on food production,ps vegtableists dont live longer, it just seems longer .................................................. .......
The main point to the thread is the impact meat industry has and not about the opinions about eating meat itself.

This is a pretty hot topic.

The main point to the thread is the impact meat industry has and not about the opinions about eating meat itself.

One thing that stuck out to me is this...Radiant_Science, you posted: "Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.
P.S....These figures comes from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations"

So I started thinking, if that is true, what is the % of all other animals and humans. It is obvious all animals would be over 100% meaning only animals cause greenhouse gases, etc...

Are they talking about cow gas? lol

So I understand you are quoting what "they" are saying, but there are almost 7 billion people.

The average American type of bred cow for meat is 1300 pounds. The average human being's weight is close enough to 130 pounds (165-190 for American's ages 20-74...so I'm going to bring that down to 130 just because the American weight is above average anyway and this doesn't include children's ages and for easy math - this is not a scientific breakdown, just a simple example.

Anyway, the point is that it takes 10 people average to equal 1 cow by weight - and by weight doesn't mean everything else would follow proportionately...maybe it only takes 5 people to equal the same amount of flatulence...another f word or the 4 letter verson...lol.

There are estimates of about 1.3 billion cattle in the world...all aren't for meat obviously so lets say 1 billion. Then there are 1 meat cattle cow for each 5.38 humans at 7 billion population...real population about 1 meat cattle for each 5 humans at the "real" population of 6.6 billion or whatever.

The cows are supposed to account for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases? In what way? That isn't said...cow flatulence - methane? lol, which they are planning on taxing by the way.

Let's say it is from that... then the human population of about 6.6 billion equals about 1.32 billion in cows for weight... so if by weight the flatulence is equal, the cows and humans are about head to head meaning that humans must equal about 18% of the green house gases.

18 + 18 = 36% of greenhouse gases...that is cows + humans equaling more than 1/3 of the greenhouse gases not including all other animals.

There are 7.3 billion deer in the world estimated - according to one post online, which I can't verify the # as even being close. But lump in horses, zebras, wolves, dogs and cats...

Average weight of deer is 125 pounds since most are small females.
So same weight as about an average human.
These "deer" may include elk, caribou, etc...
So being that is a little more than the human population for the benefit of the doubt, lets just give it the same 18%.

So 18 X 3 = 54% of greenhouse gases.

So cattle, humans and deer make up over 1/2 of the greenhouse gases. I think that is a seriously overblown estimate...even at 18% without me adding the human and deer estimate (by weight - and not a scientific estimate - just food for thought) - the 18% must be seriously out of whack.

Global warming isn't proven, it isn't a law or even a theory since the theory is shot down by the overwhelming evidence that the sun plays the most significant role and the co2 in the atmosphere follows any warming trend by 800 years consitently thorughout time over all the years that have been measured by real science. Co2 doesn't cause warming...the co2 rises according to temperature increase 800 years AFTER the fact so the temp rise is independent of co2 and whatever is causing the warming (the sun) causes an increase of co2 800 years later proportionately.

This doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't change our ways because I think we should and regardless of the propaganda on climate impact, there are facts about our pollution destroying our drinking water supplies, etc... so like always, I believe the debate should be on pollution impact and keep climate change out of it since there is no proof...only flimsy evidence that we are impacting CLIMATE. Showing the negative impact on drinkin water, our fish, etc... is MORE THAN strong enough to justify the reduction in dirtying our world.

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 humand die...the planet has a chance!

We haven't been raising cattle like we do today but since only recent times (in the numbers that we do) and any temp increase happening now in isolated parts of the world has zero relationship to the increase in cattle raising for meat or other purposes. In 800 years, there will be a proportionate increase in co2, which obviously is not emitted today as the cause and will be proportionate to our global average temperature, which is lower than it has been in the past as a matter of scientific fact. I had 2 inches of snow in my yard 2 weeks ago and it was the middle of april in the Northern hemisphere...anyway...

Regardless of the real science and facts minus the propaganda, I disagree with the way big scale farms treat animals, it is dispicable. I 100% support websites and organizations that educate the public on the mistreatment of animals such as: Milk Sucks! showing a cow making 100 pounds of milk a day so heavy it can't even stand up. SICK!

The contaiminated waste runoff into the watersheds, etc... is disgusting, it is a big waste of valuable farm land to feed cows that result in less food available for people.

I have one article way back about people in the poultry industry that swear they will NEVER eat chicken because they know how dirty and filthy and contaminated the commercial chicken industry is...they called it salmonella stew.

Americans overeat too much meat proportionately to other food like veggies, etc...

I agree with Lighty's explanation that we are omnivore's, because we are, biologically-physically, we are designed to eat both plant and animal. Our teeth and digestion is geared optimally towards eating both.

There are ideas...I can't remember the name of the person...but even believed we shouldn't eat the plants because that was the animals' job and when we eat the animals, then we get the nutrients of the plant properly broken down. I believe more in a balance but just a concept on the other end of the spectrum.

[Vortex]

Ask yourself what you are really talking about

@ ALL and not just tai61, but as tai61 said:
"The main point to the thread is the impact meat industry has and not about the opinions about eating meat itself."

I disagree Totally !!!..
I believe the REAL topic is in disguise.
Because without humans around to eat the meat there would be no Topic.
The real Topic in disguise is "the impact on the environment caused by humans eating meat" ..

This is a very sick topic ..
And you should think about the real topic and stop fooling yourself.

As long as the topic continues to be about meat and not about Proteins,
the solution can only be reduce the amount of food, "less meat" and/or
reducing the amount of USELESS EATERS, "less humans" if the environment must be a factor in the conversation.
Either solution means humans will die, they are killing pigs due to the
"swine flu" so both solutions are being enacted now.

Have a nice day
Love and Light
Randy

[future pather]

Ok I just have to ask bc people are not holding back in sharing their opinions here and this is something I wonder about people who feel it is immoral to eat meat:

In your view are omnivorous animals immoral? Maybe you think they are too stupid / uncivilized to be held accountable(?) Or maybe you think the ideal world would be one in which those animals were converted to vegetarianism?

Whatever the case I am really curious about this.


Aaron,

Thanks for posting about the carrot. It reminds me of this book and movie called The Secret Life Of Plants where they did a lot of experiments taking electrical readings of plants, showing they react to such things as A THOUGHT of a person causing them harm, and to the destruction of other life forms around them.

The Secret Life of Plants

[lighty]

Or maybe you think the ideal world would be one in which those animals were converted to vegetarianism?

A lot of vegetarians and vegans feed their pets with vegetarian and vegan food for pets. I was astounded when I found out that they're even producing such mostrosity.Take cats for example, they're obviously carnivore and here they are feeding them vegan food. Of course they tell you that such food "have everything their cat needs" but we all know how "healthy" chemical additives are. Millions years of evolution of cat metabolism and here they are trying to save Earth and save animals by essentially torturing animals. I don't have a problem when they torture their own human omnivore bodies but when they try to change the nature laws that's when I get pissed.

[mrbreau]

MY sentiments?

This picture came to me today with the caption, "the real cause of swine flu" under it. But the picture says more than I could EVER PUT INTO WORDS.

I hope y'all enjoy it.

Snk-snk

Warren
..

[future pather]

Lighty,

It's like they are saying mother nature is immoral.

Should we kill all the carnivores? Oh wait, how 'bout genetically modify them?
(Since we know better than mother nature.)

[sucahyo]

Cute kid, should we worry if kid do that?

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

.



For vegetarian, I think you all should eat bug to replace some meat nutrition, here is some clue:
Saatnya Berburu Ulat untuk Lauk Pauk (it's time to hunt larva for food)

Meanwhile, Suprapto (40) trucker from Benjeng Gresik resting in a small shop near the forest in Dawarblandong, said he already consume teak larva for 12 years. "I always at least once a week eating teak larva chips at least 4 of them. One chip contain 2 to 3 teak larva. After eating teak larva , work fatigue will be gone the next day. At rainy season many people sell these teak larva. At other time I can buy them from this stall owner, "he said.

David Gordon authors The Eat-a-Bug Cookbook
The State of Chinese Food in America | Red Cook

The last example is a bit weird though, the hive should have been served too since the honey bee hive is a very good natural anti toxin. I remember eating it as sup.

I like peyek laron, no picture as food unfortunately:
LARONS are LAMP LIGHT LOVER on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[sucahyo]

animal product = more growth?

I relate this to recent reading of Viktor Schauberger literature which mention that baby tree which live in a shade will be smaller but healthier. I think baby/kid who drink a lot milk and eat meat would have bigger build. Where baby/kid that do not will have smaller body. Especially milk have many nutrition needed for growth. Otherwise what is the point of any mother having breasts, right?

I think vegetarian or not, anyone should let their baby to drink milk, their own mother's milk for two years if possible.

But from wasting resources perspective, milk is just as "wastefull" as eating meat.


Talking about baby remind me of artificial milk, I think it is better to mention brand, in Indonesia, there are many cases where parent using Nutrilon royal have to convert to Nutrilon Soya because the kid now has alergic to cow's milk. example:
AskMydoctorS.com » PEDIATRY (Anak)

My baby do not drink mom's milk but nutrilon royal. After consulting to the doctor, it is suggested that my baby has develop an allergic, and have to use non-HA milk or soya. After switching to nutrilon soya the baby got better only for a few days.

Another bad news is about transgenic soy bean:
Genetically modified organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transgenic plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indonesian YLKI completely against it, since they believe it would introduce health problem from allergy to death. But official food control said it is save although in europe transgenic food is banned also in california. Indonesian link:
Simpang Siur Informasi Transgenik - Nutrilon Soya « Pipit’s Blog @ Wordpress.com
Label Transgenik dalam Kemasan Makanan Dianggap Perlu :: Berita :: Berita Liputan6 :: Aktual Tajam Terpercaya
Badan POM: Bahan Transgenik Aman Dikonsumsi :: Berita :: Berita Liputan6 :: Aktual Tajam Terpercaya

Seems anything is bad to eat now. who should we blame now.....

[Aaron]

food carbon credits

Like many things, something won't happen until it is profitable.

Perhaps.... carbon credits can be given to anyone eating less carbon producing food. That doesn't mean vegan or meat foods.

If someone tracks the food they eat no matter what kind, there should be an associated carbon footprint per food type per serving size. If someone shows a reduction in their food "carbon footprint", then they earn credits, which are a tradable commodity or tradable for food at a participating grocery store.

So, essentially, the highest carbon producing food eaters will be paying for the lowest carbon producing food eaters.

I'm not saying I like this system...I'm not saying I dislike it either...but am just pointing out the reality of the basic concept of the system that is already in place and is growing for other industries and how it 'could' eventually tie into food on the consumer side.

[ashtweth]

All these opinions and info is GREAT, i am adding it to the ages cant let it go to waste in the threads, a 10% ethically farmed meat diet is what we already had on our pages but these facts help justify this, thanks a lot for all the great info guys. some real critical thinkers here i love it.

Ash

[ashtweth]

The Meatrix

[Aaron]

Mad Cowboy

Here is one that has been around for a while.
NewMadCowboy Home Page

The cattle rancher that won't eat meat.

[future pather]

Sucahyo's link re: Chinese food and Aaron's mention of carbon footprint of food reminds me of something I learned in a cooking class.

The reason Chinese food was traditionally chopped up (as opposed to our steaks, pork chops, etc.) was to provide more surface area so the food would cook faster and less cooking oil would be needed.

Maybe we should try to cook with some kind of magnifying glass and sunlight so we don't need any fuel at all

[future pather]

Come to think of it (off thread topic, sorry) could magnifying glasses be used to increase solar cell efficiency?