• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Vegetarianism and the Environment

jpccusa

Happy with this new hobby
Since we could keep talking about the impact farming for human consumption has/doesn't have on the environment in the other thread (http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?p=760394#post760394), I decided to open this thread so we don't hijack Kathy's.

And you are also cutting back on the protein generated to feed the population. Did you know that if every meat producing farm was converted into a protein packed plant producing farm, that there would not be enough protein to maintain the world population? Also, third world countries that are starving and in need of "food" really need good protein, and that most efficiently supplied via meat production.

The idea is to reduce, not eliminate meat production...

How does it preserve out food reserves??? Cutting down on farming pollution and transportation pollution? are you serious? Are vegetative materials not transported? Do tractors and trucks and combines that are used in planting and harvesting and cultivating not pollute? Do we as humans not also create methane?

Do you wanna compare the amount we produce w/ the amount cows produce? Really?!?!?


Small scale family gardens would for sure cut down, if everyone could do it, but the fact is that we need large scale farming to produce what we need now. If we were to produce even more fruits, veggies, and grains and less meat products we would have the same results as we do now.

(I am not accusing you of wanting to do this), but changing the world to a vegetarian diet would be catastrophic. I am not advocating this but the only real solution is a smaller human population. Unfortunately, we will reach the carrying capacity for the world and we will see human die off. Most of it will be in third world countries, but I am sure that much will also come from urban areas where people do not know how to hunt, fish, and grow their own crops.

I agree! People should opt to not have kids or adopt them.. :uhoh:

Sorry for all the rambling, I am not trying to degrade the idea of vegetarianism, just some of the reasons people "feel" it should be done. If you have personal reasons for it, you think it might be healthier for you, or you don't like it when animals are killed (plants do feel and communicate pain), that's fine, that's a decent reason. Pollution on the other hand doesn't hold a drop of water.

That can be further debated...
 
That can be further debated...

The use of large industrial monoculture that is common in industrialised agriculture, typically for feed crops such as corn and soy is more damaging to ecosystems than more sustainable farming practices such as organic farming, permaculture, arable, pastoral, and rain-fed agriculture.

According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to deforestation, air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change, the overuse of resources including oil and water, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops. In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits.

The environmental impacts of animal production vary with the method of production. A Grazing-based production can limit soil erosion and also allow farmers to control pest problems with less pesticides through rotating crops with grass. In arid areas, however, it may as well catalyze a desertification process. In a world that utilizes around 30 percent of its surface to raise livestock, it is important to recognize the potential effects grazing has on the soil.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism)
 
I agree Wikipedia is not a trust worthy source of information, but did you bother to click on the link and THEN checking the citations posted there?

Wikipedia is a great beginning for any kind of research when there are sources cited on the page. :poke:
 
Wikipedia is a great beginning for any kind of research when there are sources cited on the page. :poke:

Wrong. I tell all of my students in all of my courses that if they cite anything from Wikipedia (or even seem to be using it and I can prove it), they start off with an F for that paper or project. If they can't find the sources in a proper literature search, then they don't belong in college.

...and remember, vegetarians are prey species.
 
Again, Wikipedia is a great website to find sources (the References part of the webpage)!
Wikipedia itself should not be a source IN SCHOOL... I agree.
 
People, like animals, that eat more vegetation, produce more, so I am doing my part (eating the problem and farting less).

As someone that grows a lot of cabbage and broccoli, I may be contributing more to global warming than I should. That's why I'm a founding member of "The Society of Canadians for Global Warming!" If I only eat plants, animals that eat plants, or animals that eat animals that eat plants, that makes me a sort vegetarian, right?
KJ
 
As someone that grows a lot of cabbage and broccoli, I may be contributing more to global warming than I should. That's why I'm a founding member of "The Society of Canadians for Global Warming!" If I only eat plants, animals that eat plants, or animals that eat animals that eat plants, that makes me a sort vegetarian, right?
KJ

I believe that does make you a vegetarian. Its all plant and plant by-products, right?
 
...and remember, vegetarians are prey species.

But once you are on the top of the food web, does it really matter?

People, like animals, that eat more vegetation, produce more, so I am doing my part (eating the problem and farting less).

Again, do you REALLY want to compare?!?!?

The digestive tracts of all living creatures produce methane, a by-product of the action of bacteria breaking down ingested food matter. Because cows have four stomachs, they create considerably more of the gas than any other animal -- 75 percent of the total methane produced by all animals.
(http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/05/cow.methane/)
 
That's why I'm a founding member of "The Society of Canadians for Global Warming!"
Not to be confused with the North Dakotans for Global Warming. Especially considering we're facing predicted record low temperatures mid-next week.

Yeah for vegetarians!! Leaves more meat for the rest of us.

D80
 
jpccusa, to be serious for a moment, in defense of the claim that agriculture produces more damaging waste to the environment than meat production, you posted a long blurb that mentioned how clean organic and naturally hydrated farming is. But your little blurb forgets to mention the fact that organic farming and natural hydration farming simply cannot supply enough vegetation for even the population of THIS country, let alone the global population.

In order to produce enough food for the population of even a rich country like the US to be entirely vegetarian, you would need to convert ALL existing ranches and farms to meg-production plants, as well as a majority of our public and BLM lands. And you still wouldn;t have enough. Producing protein-rich foods, like beans, rice, and soy, completely depletes the soild of nutritional value. How, pray tell, do you expect to enrich the soild for more growing without the use of fertilizer? Obviously, if you do it chemically, you have defeated your entire "environmentally sound" argument. But in order to use natural fertilizer you need...gasp!!...cows. Do you see the cycle?

Calling vegetarianism "environmentally friendly" is propoganda at it's best. It's a ply that tugs at the heart strings of animal lovers..."Don't kill the cows!"...and preys on the minds of tree-huggers..."Cows kill the environment with methane gas!"

You want to know what the most efficient method of removing methane gas from the atmosphere is? Introducing carbon dioxide. I'm sure you know that the largest producers of carbon dioxide on the planet are plants, right? So...while you eat the plants that help reduce the methane gas(contribute to the problem), we eat the cows that produce the methane gas(solve the problem). Yet...your "environmentally sound" argument would have you believe that by being a vegetarian, somehow the cows are going to go away...:shrugs:...maybe?? The entire argument that vegetarianism is somehow more envirnmentally friendly just does not make any sense to me. At all...

Then, of course, the next biggest argument in favor of vegetarianism is "It's healthier". You do realize, of course, that human beings are omnivorous and REQUIRE meat consumption for proper nutrition, right? This is why a healthy[ vegetarian must constantly supplement their normal food intake with processed protein supplements and "fake food" that provide higher protein and calcium levels than any plant on the planet. It's because our bodies are not designed to be vegetarian. We require meat protein for a healthy life.

Now...that's not to say we need to eat as MUCH meat as most of us do, and it certainly isn't meant to imply that fatty cooking methods, processed beef, fast food joints, and "Hamburger Helper" are good for you. Certainly it isn't, and certainly our meat consumption could be lower as a society...but still necessary.

I'm sorry, but for a healthier human, you need a balanced diet consisting of grains, dairy, vegetables, fruit and meat. ALL of these are required for a healthy diet. Remove one component and you must supplement.

And for a healthy environment...we need less people. There's no way around that. With the population of the planet where it is, we absolutely MUST produce as much and more consumable food items, including meat, in order to survive.

Turning the world into vegetarians is NOT going to solve ANY environmental problems. In fact...I'd wager a bet that a world full of vegetarians would find themselves WORSE off than we currently are simply because of the amount of land that would be required to produce enough nutritious vegetation to be consumed.
 
I remember seeing a cute girl on campus wearing a shirt that said something like "Eat A Vegetarian." Assuming she wasn't just a cannibal, I didn't know if she was referring to an act that is currently illegal under the sodomy laws in many southern states or if she meant go eat a cow, deer, rabbit, or similar animal. I'm thinking she and I would have meant something very different in the same shirt. Personally, I encourage everyone to eat a vegetarian: deer, rabbits, and the like taste good!
 
Now...that's not to say we need to eat as MUCH meat as most of us do, and it certainly isn't meant to imply that fatty cooking methods, processed beef, fast food joints, and "Hamburger Helper" are good for you. Certainly it isn't, and certainly our meat consumption could be lower as a society...but still necessary.

Plus, domestic animals have been breed to have too high of a fat content. it might taste better (i.e., marbling), but it IS less healthy for us. No doubt there. PLUS, range fed beef (which means the cattle share the landscape with wildlife as compared to a biological wasteland called a modern farm) is better than grain fed beef since it IS leaner. ...or wild game, which is healthiest of all!

PLUS, I live in Texas. If I wanted to eat a cow, it would drive a couple miles from the farm to my plate. A restaurant about 20 miles from my house slaughter's it in the back. The built the restaurant in their pasture! Awesome. Vegetarians often don't eat what is just in season locally. They eat lots of foods transported LONG distances to get to them. That means more fuel and emissions. THAT is bad for the environment AND fuel costs. Want to be a vegetarian? Grow your own! Then, you'll be doing some real good.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I grow more than I buy....and I buy maybe 5% of the meat I eat per year. Even my chickens eat less than 50% purchased feed - the rest is garden and meat scraps. If i lived where they could free range, it would be down to 15-25%! When I move, i WILL be looking for more land so they can free range!
 
Ignorance...

Honestly, I've heard both sides of the debate (vegetarian vs. "traditional" diet) in many different forums. They've been argued for many different reasons. I've mainly followed the debates more closely related to health due to the fact that I am currently enrolled in a bachelor's program for nutrition and that is where my focus has been lately.

I've read some other arguments regarding the enviroment and agriculuture's impact. I'm not sure where I fall on this, honestly. Some material I've read (which I can't cite as they were quoted in a forgotten source) says that a true vegetarian diet would have a similiar impact to our current agricultural system. Does anyone have a completely unbiased research article or information that wasn't paid for by someone who had a vested interest? I haven't been able to find one. I don't want an article published by the USDA, or by PETA. I want one by a company or entity which honestly, with no bias, wanted to know which method is the most enviromentally friendly. This is purely for my own edification.
 
Honestly, jenesses...I don't think such a paper exists. The research done has always been done in favor of one side of the debate or the other, so...who knows?

Perhaps the best way to satisfy your own curiosity would be to read as many BIASED papers as possible, and compare the common ground. That is, perhaps the closest one could get to the "truth".

The only other option I could think of would be to find Environmental Impact Reports that have been filed for a commercial meat farm and one for a commercial vegetation farm. Compare the two EIR's and you *might* be able to reveal something.

I honestly believe that in the current state of agriculture and production, you will find very little to support either side of the debate. I personally believe that the environmental impacts of BOTH types of farming are going to be quite similar...
 
And for a healthy environment...we need less people. There's no way around that. With the population of the planet where it is, we absolutely MUST produce as much and more consumable food items, including meat, in order to survive.

I wish more people understood this. There isn’t an environmental problem you can name that wouldn’t be solved if 50% of the people on this planet would move to another. It is really that simple. Any other species would be riddled with disease if they were allowed to overpopulate the way we have. Our intelligence has allowed us to survive long enough to grow into a real problem.
 
You want to know what the most efficient method of removing methane gas from the atmosphere is? Introducing carbon dioxide.

I don't know where you got this from, but it makes no sense...

As far as I know, methane (CH4) reacts with hydroxyl radicals (*OH) in the atmosphere to form water (H2O) and a methyl radical (*CH3). The reaction continues until there is nothing left but water and carbon dioxide (CO2).
 
Personally, I've complete the entire cycle here. I have a septic system that throws nutrients in my yard, I have a cow that eats the prolific grass, and I have a hose coming out of that cows butt. The hose goes directly to my BBQ pit, and I use the methane to cook the meat of the previous cow. I eat the cow and put nutrients back into the septic system. Water vapor is collected above the BBQ pit to be used to water additional grasses in the yard!
KJ
 
Personally, I've complete the entire cycle here. I have a septic system that throws nutrients in my yard, I have a cow that eats the prolific grass, and I have a hose coming out of that cows butt. The hose goes directly to my BBQ pit, and I use the methane to cook the meat of the previous cow. I eat the cow and put nutrients back into the septic system. Water vapor is collected above the BBQ pit to be used to water additional grasses in the yard!
KJ

If the world had more people as proactive as you, we wouldn't be talking about the problem of methane gas in the atmosphere. Thanks for reducing to close to zero your pollution footprint. Now start teaching your neighbors to do the same! :)
 
Back
Top