-Lots of people say that meat is no good for ya, and you can get everything you can get out of meat from fruits and vegetables, without the fat and heart disease risks.
-The cows suffer a lot. Being cramped in the modern farms, and then getting… killed… What kind of life is that?
-Most of the grain produced in the US goes to feed animals. If we didn’t have all those cows to feed, we could just grow enough for ourselves, and use the rest of the land to replant trees and stuff. I think I saw somewhere that it takes 6 pounds of grain to get 1 pound of beef.
-The cow sh*t is full of stuff that gets into the water supplies and then people drink the water and the children get brain damage… what was that chemical? Nitrate or something?
-The gas released when cows fart is damaging the atmosphere. In the US, I think they’re now feeding them something to keep them from doing it as much, but in other countries they can’t afford fancy additives.
We’re nowhere near running out of land, for planting trees or for anything else. In fact, we’ve hardly begun replanting the trees that have been clear-cut from existing forest land.
I’ve heard the “6 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef” figure, too. I’ve also heard it as “10 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef.” Problem is, whoever quotes that figure usually goes on to say that, therefore, all the starvation in the world could be cured if we gave the grain to people instead. Considering that we pay U.S. farmers not to grow grain, and that there are tons and tons of unused grain housed in silos throughout the U.S. waiting for the market to favor their release, I doubt that world starvation is due in any way to a lack of U.S. grain supply.
Well it does take 6# of grain to make 1# of beef. But you cnnnot exrapolate from that, as many anti-meat groups do, to come up with so many tons of beef = 6 times as many tons of grain. 1st, 90% of most cattle growth is from grazing, on land that is useless for farming. Then they send them to feedlots, to put on that last 10% or so, real fast on grain & etc, to fatten them up. So 90% of the beef is “free” as far as taking land from farming goes. Next, corn grown for cattle is very unlike what you buy at the grocery store. They can get yields of 2-5X for Cattle feed than sweet corn. So, in a way, that’s “free” too. And, as TRACER so correctly pointed out, there is a grain surplus in America, anyway. So, there would not be more food, overall, if we had no more ranches & cattle. Also remember that chickens, mutton & pork, also either graze or are fed a lot on waste.
Now as for cattle being bad for the environment. Over grazing IS very bad for the environment. But sustained use is not, after all the cattle are just eating what the Buffalo would have. Waste? Yes, there is some, but same as in modern farming. Cotton,eg, is an ecological disaster. It requires pesticides, ruins the soil, and has to be harvested by spraying herbicides from airplanes, ruining the air, and water table. “Nitrate runnoff” is mainly caused by chemical fertilization–of vegtables.
“Fruits & vegetables” have no B12, an essential nutrient. Also eating meat is NOT “bad for ya”, eating TOO much meat is. If humans eat a lot of veggies, we produce a lot more gas too.
COSMIN: You have no sources, no cites, just a bunch of 2nd hand misquoted anti-meat propaganda. Hit the books next time, boy :D.
Today, there’s way more cows then there ever were buffaloes, and cows don’t eat what buffaloes do. From what I understand, the old way of farming (where you let the cows out for a while to eat grass and stuff) is no longer used. They’re mostly fed with grains now, and kept indoors most of the time.
Another point which you reminded me by mentioning cotton, is that having no cows would mean having less crops that need to be sprayed with pesticides and fertilizer.
But you were right about me not being very well informed…
BTW, I love it when people put other people down and then add a cute little
>>Another point which you reminded me by mentioning cotton, is that having no cows would mean having less crops that need to be sprayed with pesticides and fertilizer.<<
Farmers would still fertilize and use pesticides so they'd be able to get the most out of farming. AFter all they're in it for the money and they want the most profit possible.
Meat will be produced so long as someone out there wants it. Nobody is starving to death because of the grains used to feed our cows. Most countries with starving people are in that condition because of bad governments. (Many of them have centralized govt. control of resources)
Meat is also a healthy part of the human diet. The problem, in the US at least, is that the meat portion is far to large. Combine that with a lack of exercise and suddenly you've got a bunch of fat folks with heart problems.
It is very possible that with our modern farming techniques each one of us could forsake forever if that was our desire. But for those who think that humans weren't meant to eat meat I challenge them to survive in the wilderness for a year without eating anything other then plants. Of course I could argue that farming isn't natural for humans so we should abandon that as well.
The gas released is called methane. It doesn’t “damage” the atmosphere, in the way that CFCs and HCFCs can damage ozone; methane is a greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, so it contributes to climate warming. Although methane is more effective at trapping heat near the Earth’s surface than carbon dioxide is, far more carbon dioxide is injected into the atmosphere through activities such as burning of fossil fuels and forest clearing by burning. In worrying about the global warming issue, it would probably be more productive to worry about carbon dioxide levels first.
Besides, other key sources of methane include rice paddies, swamps and coastal wetlands - all places where methane-producing organisms abound. Giving cows some Beano, or reducing the total number of cows, might not make that much of a difference in the long haul.
Cosmin: Do you know ANYTHING about ranching? They do not keep the cattle indoors & feed them grain, “mostly”. Ranchers GRAZE their cattle, for several years, THEN send them to a feedlot for a couple of weeks to fatten them up.
Do you have ANY idea of how many Bison there once were? :rolleyes: Look kid, do some research before you come over here to GD and start with the misinformation. Until then, stay in MPIMS. :mad:
I find it very funny how you demand citations for any comment you don’t like. Yet, you never supply citations for your own claims. Let’s see what pro-beef citations you can come up with, because I’m very interested.
Yes, it would. Those In the know, know that there has been a world-wide conspiracy of taking over the planet by the cows of the world.
This revolution must be stopped by any means, including eating as many hamburgers as possible.
Thank you.
ZERO: If you had been around for a while you will see that my Posts are chock full of cites (see some of my Biblical arguements, for eg.). But, I need no cites here, COSMIN started this with “Since ‘X’, cattle are evil”, thus HE needs to show/cite/prove ‘X’.
Now, I COULD go to hundreds of sites, and show you guys are dead wrong, but I don’t need to. If you wanna, try the Sierra club, which has been "locking horns " with ranchers over GRAZING for years now. Besides, COSMIN is stating the equivilant of “milk doesn’t come from COWS, it comes in cartons at the grocery store”. I swear, you city boys are getting more ignorant every decade. Not that I’m an expert, but I have spent my share of summers at my uncle’s ranch/farm in Sask.,Canada, where he GRAZED cattle (black angus), and grew wheat also(sold it all to Molsen, ). Get some cowshit between your toes, boys, you’ll learn something. Or type in “grazing” on your search engine, that’s more your bag.
First of all, why “…you guys”?? I hadn’t made any statements endorsing either yours or Cosmin’s views. I’m just a casual bystander who finds this topic interesting, and I want to make a decision myself.
Furthermore your argument against posting citations doesn’t make any sense. Ethos will only get you so far, buddy, and in sake of this debate your pathos isn’t helping at all. So, basically put up, or shut up, because right now you’re nothing but an antagonist to the debate. If you’re an expert on the issue, as you want the rest of us to assume, then you’ll have no qualms about providing information to us ignorant lurkers.
As a side note, I find this topic very interesting because of a book I’ve recently read on the health consequences of dairy and beef consumption. These studies, which were recommended to me by a vegetarian friend, show convincingly that dairy and beef is quite detrimental to Human health: obesity, diabetes and cancer being the result of long-term consumption.
Of course I’m not proficient enough to determine whether these studies are legit. My first response is skepticism because if these studies were accurate, then why hadn’t the general population accepted this news. Or, perhaps these studies were passed over in favor of more Elian “news”? Basically the studies looked legit to me, someone who has experience doing scientific research, but I’d like to get more information before I change my lifestyle.
If dairy and beef are harmful to health, then it’s a no-brainer that people shouldn’t consume them. In that case all other arguments against the ranching industry are irrelevant.
I think my main problem is water. I live in drought country and every few years we go through another phase of five minute showers and dead lawns. Enviromental books are full of solutions for saving water (put a brick in your touilet tank…airated showers). But everyone goes on comnsuming beef like there is no tommorw. It takes water to grow grains to feed cows. It also takes water to feed the cows themselves. When people give up meat, I will give up my showers.
zero, just a comment here on the view that dairy and beef consumption are intrinsically harmful to people’s health.
Humans are omnivores. Our digestive systems are designed to handle a variety of foods, and people normally get the nutrients they need from both animal-derived and plant-derived sources. That is the reason why vegetarians need to make sure they compensate for the lack of nutrients (especially protein) they would otherwise get from animal products. I’m sure any of our resident vegetarians can chime in here to provide specifics.
The fact that obesity and diabetes are on the rise is more indicative of the fact that while our bodies are still geared toward survival in a harsh hunter-gatherer existence, we eat far more and exercise much less than our ancestors. Increasing incidences of cancer may be a product of longer human lifespans (in the past, people died younger from illnesses or accidents), better diagnostic procedures, genetic efects, and any number of environmental insults that have nothing necessarily to do with food consumption.
With regard to the studies you’ve read - I’m not surprised that vegetarians conclude that eating dairy and beef are harmful. Really, what else would you expect? If you want to learn more, then you’ll need to look for studies reported by non-vegetarians to get a different perspective.
Before anyone gets mad at me, let me say that it matters not one whit to me if someone makes a personal choice to be a vegetarian of any variety, for any reason. It’s their perogative.
But as in the case of any advocacy group that publishes scientific studies purported to uphold their views, it’s a very good idea to take a long look around rather than accepting the results at face value. Medical studies especially lend themselves very well to lots of hype and promotion of particular viewpoints long before all the data are in (take a look at the herbal scene, for example). Saying that you have to wait 20 years for a reliable result doesn’t make good press copy.
I believe you’re correct when you say that humans are natural omnivores. But, the amount of meat consumed by prehistoric humans was much less than what a typical American eats today. Beyond that, the meat they were eating was natural small game. That means typically small animals (not herd animals) living in a natural environment (i.e. no chemical additives, low levels of feces, low levels of disease, etc.). Also, domestication of animals came much later in human history; so dairy products are relatively new to the digestive tract.
That said you could assume that a typical American diet of Steak and Potatoes is slightly irregular. Of course, so is the typical American diet of Nacho chips and ice cream, but that’s for another topic, I think. You say that the human digestive tract can handle a variety of foods, but you probably wouldn’t want to eat raw meat like many carnivores do. For one thing, humans don’t have resistances to many parasites that reside in animal flesh. Then there’s the problem with digesting rotten meat.
So, how does a vegetarian get nutrients? Well, contrary to popular belief, the only nutrient not found in plant matter but which is found in meat is Vitamin B-12. There are plenty of protein rich foods available, and some foods, like soy for an example actually have as high quality protein as meat protein. The only reason why animal matter has Vitamin B-12 is because animals harvest bacteria in their intestines, which produce it. So, all a vegetarian has to do is supplement his diet with yeast, since its byproduct is B-12.
If the above were true, then why would you want to eat meat? Well for one thing, it tastes really good. I know that my own personal craving is KFC chicken. Just smelling the stuff makes my mouth water. But on the other hand, I know that just because I think chocolate cookies smell good doesn’t justify me eating a bag of them daily. The health risks are just too large.
Another reason why you may want to eat meat is for its relationship with sex and masculinity. No joke; I read an essay once that compared sex with animal flesh. Just think about the names of two popular meats: Beef and Pork. Both of these terms are frequently used as derogatory labels for women. Then there’s the good old hunting expedition—the event when all the males in the family can have some masculine bonding.
As a side note, the book that I was referencing in my last post wasn’t vegetarian literature. It was an actual nutritional research text packed full of citations. That’s the reason why I wasn’t as skeptical about it as I normally would have been. If it were nothing more than a pamphlet from PETA then I wouldn’t dare take it serious at face value.
I was under the impression that vegetable proteins had to be combined in order to make a complete protien like that found in meat and fish? Was I wrong? Not that I would be interested in giving up meat.
What a coincidence… just last night (it was either “20/20” or “60 Minutes II”… one of those) there was a report on TV about the “French Paradox”… how, in France, the people eat a lot more meat (and fat in general) than people here in the US, yet the obesity rate and heart disease rate (and other things usually associated with high-fat diets) were WAAAAAY down. The theoretical link that was brought up was the fact that Americans are just more stressed than the French.
So is eating meat bad? Sure. But eating plants can be bad, too. So can breathing, sleeping, walking, sitting, standing, driving, peeing, having sex, giving birth, using a computer, going to school, chewing gum… etc. etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on. The thing is, there has to be a BALANCE. Vegetarians find their own means of balance that happens to not include meat. We meat-eaters would, idealistically, find our own balance… that is, eating enough meat, but often going after a nice plate of fruits and veggies (I love broccoli, for example). And for any diet, excercise is always a good idea, too.
So, back the OP… cows? Bad? Just as bad as any animal. A lot of environmentalists seem to believe that the ecosystem is a highly fragile piece of glass, and we’re chipping away at it. I doubt that. After four billion years, during which point every extreme imaginable was placed on our dear planet Earth, I don’t think that in a single, measly century, the human race will finally push mother nature over the edge. Heck, I doubt even a nuclear holocaust would eliminate all life… it’d just slow things down a bit. HOWEVER… that’s not to say that there shouldn’t be any controls.
The conditions of cows by the beef industry are pretty horrid… at least, from a person’s standpoint. From a cow’s standpoint, I don’t think they’d give two twits about being packed close together and slaughtered. After all, a cow can’t comprehend death in the way a person can. A lot of bleeding-heart ethos is spilled over the “plight of the cows” without any hard evidence to back it up (oh no! I mentioned “hard evidence”! That’s gonna be used “against” me, no doubt).
I still agree with Denis Leary: “Bring me a live cow to the table… I’ll carve off what I want and RI-I-I-IDE the rest home!”
zero, some more comments before I take off for the day…
True, dairy products probably come on the scene later in human history, and the intolerance of some folks to dairy products may reflect that. But prehistoric humans most certainly didn’t restrict their meat intake to small game. There’s plenty of archaeological evidence that large animals like mastodons and mammoths were regular sources of food for people. Indeed, although large and dangerous to kill, the payoff would have been pretty substantial (hides for clothing, bones and tusks for tools and housing support, sinew for binding, etc. in addition to food), so it makes sense that the big animals were targets for prehistoric hunters.
Yes, we can say for certainty that there were no man-made chemicals within these food animals. I don’t understand, though, why you would assume that wild animals, prehistoric or not, would have less infectious diseases than domesticated animals. As for levels of feces - I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you suggesting that since wild animals are unconfined, they are not exposed to concentrations of manure? As a geologist, I’ve spent a lot of time outdoors in pasture land and in national parks, and I can tell you in all seriousness that manure happens… everywhere. And then I am awfully glad I have my field boots on.
The typical American diet IS pretty lousy - no argument there. Would I want to eat raw meat? Well, I’m not a huge fan of it, but steak tartare is not exactly unheard of. There are many cuts of meat that are barely cooked and served very rare; they are usually beef, but I have been served rare pork and survived without ill effect. Of course in the fish world, we have sashimi. And at least one dish that people would swear was just rotten - the dreaded lutefisk (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=18478). IMHO, the current aversion that many people feel toward raw meat is a cultural thing, and not one dictated by our physiology.
I would not argue with you that humans are healthier without parasites. However, the ability of humans to avoid having a heavy parasite load is quite recent, and is still not par for the course in developing countries today. Besides, parasites don’t have to be ingested to take hold in a human (many make their entrance via contaminated water, or enter through the skin). If you can be sure that you won’t be exposed to parasites in any other way, and are left worrying only about ingesting parasites from animal flesh, you could always just cook the meat longer and at a sufficiently high temperature.
According to the Mayo Clinic Health Oasis (Mayo Clinic), calcium, iron, zinc, and Vitamin D are also nutrients that one has to pay attention to if following a vegetarian diet.
Meat tastes great because of the fats within it. Humans like fat because it is a high energy food, something that would have been really important for our ancestors’ survival. Obesity is a problem because we have trouble resisting the urge to consume as much fat as possible, while living a lifestyle that doesn’t (usually) require a high caloric intake. That said… there is nothing wrong with eating meat (or chocolate chip cookies) in moderation. Our bodies are perfectly capable of handling it.
**
I don’t understand where this comes from at all. I’m a woman; I like meat. I don’t sit down at the dinner table, look a steak and think, “Oh, yes, this steak is just making me feel…so…HOT!” Nor does my boyfriend turn into a raging stud after half a rack of ribs… unless, of course, we start playing with the barbecue sauce.
I would be interested to know the name of the book, and the authors’ backgrounds. The authors’ backgrounds are really far more important in judging the worth of a work that whether it’s presented as a book or a pamphlet.
