Veganism

Great Debates
101

Obesity is a Disease. It’s actually an epidemic.

Here’s a quote from the CDC (bolding mine):

No, obesity it’s not limited to omnivorous diets. But, on a country by country basis, you’ll find that the correlation between the average amount of meat eaten and obesity (not to mention heart disease) is quite stunning.

But, this isn’t a discussion about obesity. If you want to start a new thread, I’m sure “Is obesity a disease?” would draw quite interesting reactions. By the by, welcome to the board.

Best,

TGD

102

Did you find the data you were looking for?
I don’t have numbers yet, but the gist is that certified organic farms have a lower yield but they also have much lower inputs. Inputs such as herbicides and pesticides, chemical fertilizers, energy expense for conventional tillage and irrigation add to the cost and benifit ratio of conventional agriculture.
So then your wondering if its a better profit to go certified organic they why is less than 1% of farms (at least in Canada but probably simillar for most G9 nations) doing this. Well mostly it become an agro-economic issue. the cost of transition is still rather high. The process is a long term management one and agro-business still needs to turn a quicker profit.

If your suggesting that conventional agriculture is more efficient then as you suggest cutting down the adjacent forest then this at least goes back to the central issue of meat consumption. Generally it takes up to 25 times the amout of land to produce 2000 calories of meat energy then compared to vegitation and 180 times the amout of potable water. The waste produced should also be considered for carnivorous diets. It must be appreciated that a average farm of 250 animal “units” ( Provincial governments determine farm capacity by units and not by head count, A “unit” is measure of nitrate waste produced) anyway, this single farm can produce the same amout of waste as a city of 25 000 people. The remaining major impact of animal-farm-for-consumption is in the greenhouse gas emmission. Specifically methane. methane is rated as 310 time more potent that carbon dioxide. the good news is that it only last 20 years in the atmosphere.

The morality aspect concerns me not but rather I have reduced my mammal intake for ecological and sustainability purposes.

103

Brendan- you’re getting your figures for amounts of land & water etc to produce meat from the PETA site or something.

To start out with, cattle, sheep etc are grazed- often on government land, even in National Forests, on land that is either unsuitable or unacceptable for agriculture. PETA & the other vegan sources don’t bother to figure this in. And here, cattle are actually a fine part of the environment- as long as they aren’t allowed to overgraze- which is done all too often, I will admit.

Then they are sent to a feedlot, where indeed, they are fed corn, sorgum & the like- which also includes byproducts, not usuable for human consumption. However, the corn & sorgum which is fed at the feedlot is not suitable for human consumption either, it is special coarse, high yeild grain, grown on second rate farm land. In other words, most of the time, the corn used to fatten up cattle is not taking away from human food. And, some versions of this feedgrain is designed to grow without piping in water, ie just rainfall. Thus, the 2000 calories produced from cattle & the like is just about all “free” in terms of “taking food away from humans”.

I’d also like a cite (NOT from PETA or any other biased group) which shows that 1 cow= 100 humans in terms of “waste”. Cows do crap a lot, but not that much- and they certainly don’t produce the other sorts of nasty toxic waste that humans in cities do. “Waste” does NOT mean just excrement, you know. Actually, chemical fertilizers are AFAIK the biggest source of nitrate “waste”.

Methane is a significant source of greenhouse gasses. But you just can’t throw around figures like “310 times more potent” until you look at the big picture. After all, if you believe some cites, the big source is SUV’s. :smiley:

104

In a lot of cases cow manure isn’t entirely ‘waste’ either.

Cow manure is recycled into … well… cow manure that you buy at the store to put on your garden to make it grow.

Horse and cow manure are popular fertilizers.

105

Pig shit, on the other hand, isn’t.

Daniel

106

Considering the respect you show for authoritative cites, I’m not getting my hopes up, but Howzabout a report from the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry?

and

and

Daniel

107

OK first of all I am not a PETA advocate nor (like you) would I accepted poorly sourced stats. But I can understand at first inspection it seem in outerspace so let be try to clear it up a bit. My area is in Canadian sources but I found a few US ones so it has a local feel.

I agree that cattle are not used on the best crop lands but neither are crops. In California the trend has been towards urbanization. of the remaining agricultural lands the share is shifting (albiet of a reduced share) to cattle. You will find that there is less cattle than before but the value of each head is more than compensating receipt wise. Furthmore the image of a cattle farm with wide spaces should be removed. Although not completly overwhelming as of yet the raising of cattle is moving to Intensive livestock operations (ILO’s). Essentially lots of cattle …small area.

I refer you here to the US department of agriculture survey
http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr02/acro02.htm
look for the pdf file on cattle stats and compare with land use stats for you home state
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/fic/states/california.html
Others can find resource by state from there as well.

You are also correct that cattle are fed a feed not suitable for humans, but the picture needs to be complete. Low quality feed produces more waste, and at you request I have this clarification.

http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/animalwaste/dairyfact.html

I am sure that the EPA is a trusted source for you. The part of intrest is that it states that ONE cow produces 22 TONS of waste per year. WTF??? Let me know when you shit 22 tons in your life!!!
To the “free calorie” idea. well the problem is essentially that as you move up tropic levels, the efficiency is reduced. If they are fed lower quality feed then they must consume more to gain the nutrients. This is a rather vicious cycle here I know.

Alas I erred completely with my greenhouse gas stats. I should have said nitrous oxide is 310 more potent than CO2. methane is only 21 time.
here is a hit to support my claim
http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/animalwaste/dairyfact.html

look for youself under “Global Warming Potential” its well established and accepted.

Lest we veer to far off topic. The point I am trying to make is that consuming the amount of meat in N.American diets is unsustainable for the furture environment. I suggest that everyone consume less meat for the overall ecological value. For Canadians this will go a long way towards the Kyoto obligations.

(Canadians can go to Statcan.ca for sources, look under census of agriculture)
:cool:

108

Whoops my bad sorry.
I meant to refer to this site
http://www.environment.govt.nz/indicators/climate/emissions/gwp.html

109

Ah, I see. Well, if we are using the term “waste” to = BODILY waste, then yes, a cow does shit a lot more than a human. But said cow doesn’t drive a car, litter, or dispose of nasty stuff in the dump. So, yeah, if “waste” just means “bodily waste” in these papers, sure- and I said as much. Sounds a bit high, and I can see a lot of estimates, fudge factors, etc. Brendans figure of 250 cattle= 25000 humans is quite a bit higher than Daniels figure of 200 cattle= 5000>10000 humans- taking average figures 333% higher, in fact. But still- I never said animal husbandry doesn’t hurt the environment. It does. But so does farming.

Agriculture as a whole is a significant polluter, which I have said all along. See Daniels cite of: “…AGRICULTURAL runoff, INCLUDING nutrients from animal waste…” (caps mine). Animal husbandry is a significant contributor to this- which I have said all along. The point is- so is farming. Raising cotton, or tomatoes, or whatever-isn’t 100% “safe” for the environment, nor is ranching the only culprit here. (Cotton is especially bad for the environment, for instance)

Now, sure- you can have a “organic” and “green” farm, with far lower pollution & impact. On a traditional ranch, where the cattle aren’t allowed to overgraze- you can have the same sort of lower impact. Are these effective enough so that we can feed everyone?

And, of course the PETA dudes would have you only think that cattle are raised for beef, and that so many gallons of water or tones of grain = some sad amount of beef. But as Brendans cite shows- your average dairy cow produces over 20000 pounds of milk per year. Thus, one may argue that is isn’t effective to convert so many tons of feed into so many pounds of beef, but when you are also getting tons of milk out of the equation, the figures aren’t so bad. Remember- there is plenty of food in the world, enough for everyone. The problem is distribution. Dried milk is a lot easier to transport on a pound for calorie basis that is broccoli… or even corn. Thus, without animal husbandry- especially dairy- the food distribution problem only gets worse- which means more people starve.

I will certainly agree that feeding humans is really doing some nasty things to the environment. Reforms are in order. But a omniverous diet does not impact the environment orders of magnitude more than a vegan diet does.

110

All you’ve done is poke nonquantitative holes in other folks’ strong cites. Howzabout let’s see some of your own, then? What would you consider a fair quantitative comparison of the harm done to the environment by an omnivorous diet vs. a vegan diet?

Daniel

111

You are the ones with the claims. You claim animal husbandry damages the environment significantly more that farming for plants. Thus, you need the cites. “Other folks strong cites” only show that “animal husbandry does significant damage to the environment” (and in at least a couple case, your cites also mention farming as doing significant damage too, as I pointed out)- and I concede this. So- what you gotta do is give me a few nice fair unbiased sources (like the ones you already have. Those are acceptable, like I already said) that state that “animal husbandry does significantly (say 2>10 times?) MORE damage to the environment that farming does.”

I didn’t poke holes in those cites at all. I accepted them. True, in one case they made my point (Brendans figure for cow waste was 333% too high), and I do say they have “some estimates & fudge factors”, but I’d go with them. But those cites- nice as they are- don’t prove you dudes point at all. Like I have always said- they just say that animal husbandry damages the environment- they do NOT say it does so MORE than farming.

If I say I doubt that the Iraqi army is bigger than the British army- you can’t prove your point by cites which only show how big the Iraqi army is- there must either be multiple cites, with figures for both armies, or a couple of site which compare the two.

You make the extraordinary claim- you back it up with cites. COMPARATIVE cites. Unbiased cites.

112

Exactly how I thought you’d respond.

Daniel

113

Lemme be a little clearer. We’ve given you quantitative cites; you’ve repudiated them with qualitative non-cites (“Sure, cows eat lots of corn, but that’s not corn grown on high-quality land”). Give us some quantitative cites to repudiate ours, if you’re interested in this conversation; otherwise, it looks awful lot like you’ve got no substance to your argument.

Daniel

114

Cotton huh?
so uhh… do you eat that with mayo or mustard?

115

Daniel- your claim is that Animal Husbandry damages the environment more than farming. That is “if we all eat veggies, and no meat, this will be better for the environment”. This is the “extraordinary claim” part of your arguement. YOU two made this extraordinary claim- you have to back it up with cites. And you haven’t.

Sure, your cites are quantative- but they aren’t comparative. I don’t need to “repudiate” your cites- like I said- I LIKE your cites, I agree with your cites. But what your cites say is that: “animal husbandry damages the environment”. Which I am in complete 100% agreement to, and in fact made the exact same point. So- why would I want to repudiate them? I’ll say it again: “Animal husbandry damages the environment” (As does farming). OK? But no one disputes that. What I dispute is you two guys claim that it does so significantly MORE than farming.

Even your very own cite says "(in 60% of “impaired rivers) …AGRICULTURAL runoff, INCLUDING nutrients from animal waste, is the largest contributor to pollution.” (caps mine) Got that? “Agricultural”- that means farms, too, and in fact, the way it was worded it would seem that “animal waste” is NOT the prime contributor.

I wholeheartedly accept your cites with glad cries of wonder & astonishment. However, your cites do NOT- in any way shape or form- back up your claim.

You guys made the claim- I didn’t. I think the wording here is “back it up, or back down”. Sorry, but that’s the way it’s done here. You wanna prove that pigs can fly?- you give us cites & proof. I do not have to prove that pigs can’t fly.

116

Brendan? I’ll bet a nickle you eat products with cottonseed oil. However, we do have to wear clothes, you know, and if Vegans don’t want us to wear wool or leather, then cotton is one of the top choice after that.

I’m not trying to give you a hard time. You make a good point, one that we all need to think about- when we eat, it has to come from someplace other than the grocery store. And, if it is grown on a farm, or raised on a ranch- our food damages the environment- and a lot more than most of us know. I agree wholeheartedly, and thank you for the informative cites (which didn’t tell me anything much new, mind you).

But, however- you claim that eating vegan is a lot BETTER for the environment than eating meat. This is what we call a “claim”. Thus, when you make such a claim, and I say “cite?”, you need to back it up with a cite. Now, your cites here are from fine, unbiased sources- easy to read, etc. But they don’t back up your claim. To continue my silly analogy about “flying pigs”- your cites do the equivilant of proving that pigs do indeed exist- and lots of them, too. So? But they don’t show any wings. Show me the wings, OK? Prove to me, with comparitive cites, that eating vegan is lots better for the environment than eating omnivore.

117

Fair enough:

here:

I cannot give you a number-by-number comparison, but it seems pretty clear that eating meat has a far greater impact on the environment than eating an equivalent vegan diet.

Now, you’ve made the extraordinary claim that the grains on which livestock are fed are unsuitable for human consumption – and I think you’ve made the claim that human-quality grains cannot be grown on that land. Do you have any support for these two positions? (I’m aware that many livestock grains are genetically engineered and not approved for humans, but that doesn’t prove that the land couldn’t support human-quality grains; you need to show that these grains are grown on lands that couldn’t support human-quality grains in order for your extraordinary claim to have merit).

Daniel

118

Not clear at all. It is difficult to find figures from those not beholden to a particular agenda. Here’s a few more uncited opinions which I’d be happy to back up with references on request:

  1. Ag is a big polluter, whether you are growing traditional tillage, organic, no-till, or whatever. Each practice has its environmental benefits and costs.

  2. Ag (in the US) is being forced to clean up its act. It is possible to run a sustainable operation of any kind, be it organic soy, or feedlot beef. It’s just expensive. Without question, that’s where we are headed. Expect to pay more for your food and/or eat more food from countries with less stringent environmental standards.

  3. Grazing is largely done on marginal lands unsuitable for cropping. The land grazed by ruminants simply cannot be converted to land suitable for cropping for a variety of reasons including tilth, climate and slope.

  4. Organic produce is cheap, environmentally sound, or high quality. Pick any two.

  5. It is unlikely that there is enough arable land suitable for organic farming to feed the world. Or, for that matter, enough labor to handle high-yield, low footprint organic farming without converting to a worldwide agrarian society.

  6. A vegetarian-based agricultural system will rely heavily on manmade fertilizers that do not increase tilth as well as manure. Futhermore, such a system would rely to a greater degree on mechanization, higher fossil fuel consumption, conventional tillage (and associanted erosion) and pesticides.

  7. Solid (and liquid) animal manure is land-applied. Such recycling of nutients lays bare the claim of the ratio of acres/pound of protien from soy versus beef. A better measure would be cost per kilocalorie of beef versus pound of soy. Such a measure would take into account inputs and outputs. But it still wouldn’t be a good one because:

  8. Soy beans are not an evironmentally friendly crop. At least pasture land is not monoculture. Acre for acre, pasture supports a far more diverse ecosystem than cropland.

Best,
Dev

119

  1. I asked for “some nice fair unbiased sources (like the ones you already have)…”. Funny- when you need to show some fact I agree to, you come up with the EPA, the USDA, Senate reports, and the like- but when I ask for something that is rather doubtful you come up with “Vegetarismus” and a speech by the “Secy of the Oxford Vegetarians”. :rolleyes:

  2. Then your cites don’t even show what I asked for. Sure, animal husbandry is worse than farming for some sorts of pollution (NH3 is an example), but farming is worse than AH for others- see you very own second cite with lines like “excess nitrogen from intensive farms may cause ground water pollution” and “fertilizers & pesticides decrease biodiversity” and others. Saying that cattle raising produces more shit than beet farming is a given. But beet farming uses more chemical fertilizers & herbicides, and causes more soil erosion. Which is overall worse for the environment?

  3. Then what was my other comment…oh yes “…Peta dudes would have you only think that cattle are raised for beef, and that so many gallons of water…= some sad amount of beef…” And what do you post- that old “factoid” "1kg of beef takes 3,000 to 4000liters of water? :rolleyes: Sure a dairy cow, in a ten year life would only produce something 1000# of beef- but according to Brendans cite it also produces 200,000# of milk over the same period. Then- how much of that water that is used comes from irrigation, as opposed to rainfall? Your veggies are almost all grown by irrigation water- cattle are grazed upon land that is only watered by rain. Thus, that “factoid” is garbage for purposes of environmental impact- unless you think rainfall damages the environment somehow? (Yes, OK, cattle are at the end usually fattened upon grain, and that grain could be grown with irrigation water. But that is a very small portion of their overall lifespan).

  4. You ask me to provide a cite “that the grains on which livestock are fed are unsuitable for human consumption”- well, would the other dude argueing your point be OK? I quote Brendan “You are also correct that cattle are fed a feed not suitable for humans…”. This is so widely known by anyone that knows which end of a cow shits should accept that cite as good enough be good enough. My Lord, dude- don’t you even read the posts before you reply? It is not an “extraordinary claim”, thus asking for a cite is rather rude- like asking me to provide a cite that the Erath goes around the sun. Yes- human quality grains CAN be grown on that land- but it is second rate land, and thus animal feed quality grains can be grown with less fertilizer, less irrigation, and less staff. Altho Brendan did make a good point in that we are building cities on some of the best farmland. I concede this is a serious problem- but one that confronts farming more than ranching.

So Daniel- again- I do not deny that animal husbandry seriously damages the environment. I agree- it does. Thus, cites which show that it does do nothing. The problem is- so does farming. Nor do I contest that AH is worse at some sorts of pollution- clearly it is. But farming is worse at others. So- what we need is an UNBIASED cite or 2 which compares the OVERALL damage to the environment by both. Now- I will say here that I wouldn’t be surprised if AH is somewhat worse than farming- but I doubt if is it a LOT worse.

Brendan- although we disagree, I want to thank you for your unbiased cites, and your knowledge on this subject. You have contributed a lot to this debate.

Dev- nice post- I’d like to hear more. Maybe some cites, if you want? they might make Daniel happy.

120

Well thats a bet I wouldn’t take, I am sure that I consume many products without my explicit knowledge, but consumer deception is another topic.

OK I was reading over the topic again and so far I want to emphasize the vegitarian = ecological aspect, not completely vegan however as sustainability is based on local supply… more later.

As I understand your points thus far… you are not contesting that meat consumption is a hazzard for the environment but what you are contesting is that how much of a hazzard when compared to other sources like crops.

So lets do it. So that we can make best comparisons lets lay some ground work here.
first for convience lets agree to use American sources (My area of concern is Canadian so give some time) how about as much as possible the USDA, the EPA and census stats.
to make it easy lets look at directly comparable factors.

  1. nitrous wastes
  2. greenhouse gas emmissions
  3. water use
  4. distribution methods
  5. energy efficiency

other aspects not directly comparable can come after this such as

  1. pest/herb/fungucides
  2. Antibiotics and hormones

Agricultural management like Intensive Livestock Operations and Conventional tillage should be weight in last because they are so mutable.

The problem now is in comparison factors. crops can be compared by land area but cattle ranches and ILO’s cannot. So what would be best here? Monitary value? calorie and energy- nutrient density?
Well anyway. since I don’t have US stats I’ll go source then out and get back to you with the raw numbers in a little while.

Oh by the way… does PETA really object to wool? how strange is that?? Well since we can eat it lets leave it out.
:cool: