Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vegetables and fruits and grains are more demanding on the soil than the natural grasses, etc., many livestock are grazed on in the west. Cattle (or the bison I'd like to see replace them) can be raised on lands that would never support other agriculture. That would translate to a higher demand on the good soils of the east and Midwest. Meaning more destruction of wildlife habitat. There's really no good solution to feeding us when we're so overpopulated. And many of us will not do well on a vegetarian diet regardless of the hype some put out.
Good point. Plus you cannot grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables described in temperate, seasonal climates. They require climates where the temperature does not drop below freezing. However we can grow mass amounts of corn and soy in the great plains of the US at much higher yields which can be used to feed cattle which respond much better to grains than humans do being they eat grains exclusively.
On the other hand humans would NOT want to survive with corn, wheat, and soy as the basis of their diets unless they wanted a host of health problems as they got older. Humans were generally not designed to have carbs make up 90% of our calories despite what some would have you think. Many people have allergies to gluten, nuts, oats, etc. but very few have an allergy to meat. Excessive fructose in the diet combined with excessive calorie consumption has been a problem...
Please define "factory farming" so that there can be a discussion where everyone is on the same page.
For example, I live surrounded by the pastures of one of the largest cattle handling operations of its kind in the country (whether it's first or second depends on the day of the week and how many cattle came through then). They're large enough to have a contract with McDonald's to provide beef. I'm constantly being told the horrible conditions that the cattle that go to be beef for McDonald's are raised in. Then I look out my window, or drive down the road on the way to town, and what do I see?
Beautiful, huge pastures, with cattle in them who, if you have lived with cattle, raising them from birth, you can tell are quite contented. Fresh running water plus well water. The company of their own kind, very important for herd animals. Lightly grazed pastures because they don't overload the pastures. Occasionally men on horseback moving the cattle from one part of the pasture to another part that is less heavily grazed, or onto trucks to be moved to another pasture if necessary, rather than using 4 wheelers to do that job because the 4 wheelers would cause the cattle to run.
Research today points to the link between grain fed cattle and meat that is hugely imbalanced in the ratio of omega-3 acids (healthy) and omega-6 (unhealthy). For one, we have no way to verify your story of the next door cows being happy - being the same cows going to McDonald's. Second, the cows are just started on pasture but they are finished in feed lots where they are fed grains. Third, factory farming is much broader than what you narrowly described - it includes sows sitting in crates in which they cannot move, "veal" being grown in small boxes, milk cows in boxes, chickens 20+ a box standing on top of each other - much, much more.
A person does not have to give up the meat to be more ethical about this stuff - but a person must be prepared to pay much more for pasture raised meat - also be ready to start reading labels. This extends to milk too - 1/2 gallon grass-fed only milk is in the $5-6 range, factory one is cheap, cheap - you get what you paid for.
Vegetables and fruits and grains are more demanding on the soil than the natural grasses, etc., many livestock are grazed on in the west. Cattle (or the bison I'd like to see replace them) can be raised on lands that would never support other agriculture. That would translate to a higher demand on the good soils of the east and Midwest. Meaning more destruction of wildlife habitat. There's really no good solution to feeding us when we're so overpopulated. And many of us will not do well on a vegetarian diet regardless of the hype some put out.
This is completely not true. A family of 2-4 people can ALWAYS have a garden (year round if using a greenhouse) and grow stuff in season and out of season on a pretty small acreage. The problem is land distribution, not what can be grown and where.
Vegetables and fruits and grains are more demanding on the soil than the natural grasses, etc., many livestock are grazed on in the west. Cattle (or the bison I'd like to see replace them) can be raised on lands that would never support other agriculture. That would translate to a higher demand on the good soils of the east and Midwest. Meaning more destruction of wildlife habitat. There's really no good solution to feeding us when we're so overpopulated. And many of us will not do well on a vegetarian diet regardless of the hype some put out.
If nobody ate meat, we would need so much less land to feed everyone that this wouldn't really be an issue. Have you ever tried a vegetarian diet? How do you know some people wouldn't do well on it? India is home to 1.25 billion people. On average they eat 15 grams of meat per day. That is one burger a week. Essentally vegetarianism, how do all these people survive?
This is completely not true. A family of 2-4 people can ALWAYS have a garden (year round if using a greenhouse) and grow stuff in season and out of season on a pretty small acreage. The problem is land distribution, not what can be grown and where.
Not everywhere. Gardening gets dicey the further north you go. Gardening in Barrow Alaska isn't happening without a greenhouse and petroleum fuels to heat it and light it along with imported soil (meanwhile they have caribou and fish in abundance in season). Some of the soils in places like the UP of Michigan and elsewhere in the upper Midwest are so sandy and poor in spots they barely support stunted jack pine (ever read a Sand County Almanac?). Then you get to overpopulated population centers (cities) where there really isn't much space to garden and there are contamination/pollution issues.
If nobody ate meat, we would need so much less land to feed everyone that this wouldn't really be an issue. Have you ever tried a vegetarian diet? How do you know some people wouldn't do well on it? India is home to 1.25 billion people. On average they eat 15 grams of meat per day. That is one burger a week. Essentally vegetarianism, how do all these people survive?
It is an issue because it's not just the amount but the quality of the land that needs to be considered. 10 acres of desert in Arizona will be unproductive compared to 10 acres in the lush east. I've tried vegetarian diets in the past, they left me weak and ill regardless of the vitamin supplements.
India is not an example I would hold up. That country is seriously overpopulated with a large number of impoverished people not actually surviving long term. Malnutrition, disease, etc. is widespread there. They are in the top 15 countries for hunger. Their average life expectancy is 13 years shorter than ours in the U.S.
Not everywhere. Gardening gets dicey the further north you go. Gardening in Barrow Alaska isn't happening without a greenhouse and petroleum fuels to heat it and light it along with imported soil (meanwhile they have caribou and fish in abundance in season). Some of the soils in places like the UP of Michigan and elsewhere in the upper Midwest are so sandy and poor in spots they barely support stunted jack pine (ever read a Sand County Almanac?). Then you get to overpopulated population centers (cities) where there really isn't much space to garden and there are contamination/pollution issues.
OK, almost anywhere. My point is that land distribution is the problem for 95% of the country. What I mean by that is something like my situation - I own 5 acres and I have multiple gardens where I grow veggies. I could also have a few fruit trees, some grapes and berry bushes to provide the fruit part of the equation. My neighbor, on the other hand has 70 acres and does absolutely nothing with them. I grow food for my wife and me and I have leftover veggies for neighbors and family, neighbor buys her food in the grocery store. If I had those 70 acres you can bet a large portion would be under cultivation. We do not live in a "farm area", soil is rocky and limestone underneath, summers are dry/high heat but you can build up almost any soil with input from horse/chicken/goat/cow/duck/whatever manure over time. Our property was all weeds and rock - the previous owner had 7 horses on the 5 acres (!) that grazed everything down to nothing. Took 2-3 years of layering manure on top of manure on top of manure and the natural cycles of rain and sun to make a good, nay, great spoil layer for growing stuff.
So, the land is distributed among people who do not care about growing food mostly. When they do grow (farmers), many times it is mono crops with chemical inputs. All in all a bad situation.
We once lived in an unincorporated community in South Florida - each lot was 1.14 - 5 acres in size, about 1,000 lots or so. So much land could feed a city but nay, most people did not grow anything, in fact they kept throwing herbicides and pesticides onto the lawns and spending money on gasoline and time into the wind to mow them once a week...
It is an issue because it's not just the amount but the quality of the land that needs to be considered. 10 acres of desert in Arizona will be unproductive compared to 10 acres in the lush east. I've tried vegetarian diets in the past, they left me weak and ill regardless of the vitamin supplements.
52 percent of land in the US is agricultural land. 35 percent of land in the US is grazing land. That means that 17 percent of the land is used for growing plant food. About 5/8 of the plant food grown is fed to animals. That means that roughly 6.4 percent of land is used to feed people in the US plant food. About 30 percent of calories that an American eats are from animal products. This means that to feed the US on a vegan diet would require about 9.1 percent of the land area of the US or only 17.5 percent of the agricultural land we use now.
If you feel weak on a vegetarian diet, then you are doing something wrong. There is no reason that dairy and eggs would be that different from meat, dairy and eggs. You probably shocked your system by going about it in the wrong way.
Quote:
India is not an example I would hold up. That country is seriously overpopulated with a large number of impoverished people not actually surviving long term. Malnutrition, disease, etc. is widespread there. They are in the top 15 countries for hunger. Their average life expectancy is 13 years shorter than ours in the U.S.
That is because of socio-economic issues, not diet.
"That is because of socio-ecomic issues, not diet"
Pretty much everything does come down to socio-econmic issues. True.
Cruelty can continue because people are brain washed into thinking that large scale, intensive animal farming are in some was "part or the circle of life" in some happy Disney inspired scenario.
Compassion can prevail when people demand justice for those who have no voice. When people realize where their meat comes and how a beautiful animal became a steak and say, "wow, that's ugly".
There is nothing pretty or natural about slaughter. Or veal crates. Or gestational crates. Or agricultural specific laws that permit a baby piglet to be castrated with out anesthesia.
Compassion can not coexist when cruelty prevails. Or when people close their eyes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
