News,The Cow Turns Green (organic, natural, climate, environmental)

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by d_Random

That is an interesting subject, the impact of wildlife. The reason I think it does not have the impact that livestock does is that the vast majority of the grains we grow in the U.S. go to feed livestock. A 12-year-old Cornell study found that livestock, “consume more than five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population.” When you consider the GHG emissions from all that grain production including transportation and the fossil fuels used to make artificial fertilizers you start to get the picture of just how resource intensive industrial food animal production can be.



Cows and cars probably produce similar amounts of greenhouse gas contaminants per year. However estimates of the number of cars in the world vary from 500-600 million and the number of cows are estimated at 1.5 billion so the conclusion has to be that cows are more harmful to the environment than cars. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Cows-Vs-Cars---The-Methane-Versus-Carbon-Dioxide-Battle&id=2877531 - broken link)

If everyone eliminates eating meat, you're going to be needing to grow even more grain, etc., clear more habitat, etc. There's more wildlife than livestock in the world.

You're oversimplifying the car issue. Cars emit far more toxic emissions than cows, it isn't just greenhouse gases we're talking about but carcinogens, etc., and then also add in the oil spills, leakages from cars, the landfills filling up with toxic components from old cars...

[GregW]

I suggest worrying less about the sources of Methane and CO2 and more about reducing the economic impact of global sea level rise and the redistribution of arididity around the world.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by GregW

I suggest worrying less about the sources of Methane and CO2 and more about reducing the economic impact of global sea level rise and the redistribution of arididity around the world.

I'm not quite sure how to achieve the later without addressing the first two.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

If everyone eliminates eating meat, you're going to be needing to grow even more grain, etc., clear more habitat, etc. There's more wildlife than livestock in the world.

You're oversimplifying the car issue. Cars emit far more toxic emissions than cows, it isn't just greenhouse gases we're talking about but carcinogens, etc., and then also add in the oil spills, leakages from cars, the landfills filling up with toxic components from old cars...

Yep. If we all go vegetarian, we're going to be in direct competition with wildlife and any remaining domestic animals for the available land to grow crops.


Interesting article on study on deforestation due to clearing the land for croplands and its negative impact on the environment.

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

People are so gullible that it continually amazes me. If you have even been around a swamp, you can see first hand how methane bubbles up from the rotting vegetation. Yet the ecologists decry the loss of wetlands (totally ignoring the reduction in methane production) at the same time they moan about cow farts. They want to eliminate the cows and try to turn more land back into swamps. That means we would have less meat and more malaria and yellow fever and more mosquitoes. Good move.

If you have ever put mulch around and had it disappear, or had a compost pile and have it shrink in size, guess where all that carbon went. Yep. CO2 and methane. Yet both activities are considered good for the environment.

I go along with the idea of cattle being pastured and grass fed because it makes sense and gives some farmers and ranchers a few more bucks, rather than feed lot operators. As for these proselytizers for the religion of composted vegan idiocy, I suggest that they make the ultimate sacrifice immediately, and eliminate their carbon footprints.

Grass-fed beef is just plain better all around. You have leaner meat, healthier cows, and any bovine off-gassing is better balanced by the carbon fixation of re-growing grass.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

Grass-fed beef is just plain better all around. You have leaner meat, healthier cows, and any bovine off-gassing is better balanced by the carbon fixation of re-growing grass.

Actually, that's a matter of opinion. I grew up on Iowa corn-fed beef. My dad always fed his cattle (still does, actually) a good mix of roughage and corn. Unless you've had it, there's no way to describe how great it is.

[Tart Green Apple]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

If everyone eliminates eating meat, you're going to be needing to grow even more grain, etc., clear more habitat, etc. There's more wildlife than livestock in the world.

One acre of prime land can produce 60,000 pounds of celery, 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 40,000 pounds of onions, 30,000 pounds of carrots, or 250 pounds of beef.

You're oversimplifying the car issue. Cars emit far more toxic emissions than cows, it isn't just greenhouse gases we're talking about but carcinogens, etc., and then also add in the oil spills, leakages from cars, the landfills filling up with toxic components from old cars...

There are some things I did not mention regarding livestock production:

- Livestock industry is the Largest sectoral water polluter.
- Livestock is the #1 cause of Amazon rain forest deforestation
- Livestock is a major culprit of wildlife biodiversity lost through habitat change, climate change, invasive alien species and pollution.
- Water requirements of meat and dairy are 10 times that of grains and vegetables.
- 30% percent of the earth's ice-free land is directly or indriectly involved in livestock production
- Livestock is a major cause of wide scale land degradation.

[TexasHorseLady]

I'd say the worse form of pollution on the planet is those who can't simply make their own decision about what to eat, but have to justify that decision (which apparently can't stand on its own without support) by trying to get everyone else to make the same decision.

The point of my link above was that if you're truly motivated you can find links to prove whatever you want to prove. Including that deforestation for crops (to feed people) is worse than deforestation for pasture (to feed cattle), from an environmental standpoint.

[Tart Green Apple]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Yep. If we all go vegetarian, we're going to be in direct competition with wildlife and any remaining domestic animals for the available land to grow crops.

Actually if we all went vegetarian (which I am not suggesting) we would require much less land to produce food. As I mentioned in a previous post, "one acre of prime land can produce 60,000 pounds of celery, 50,000 pounds of tomatoes, 40,000 pounds of potatoes, 40,000 pounds of onions, 30,000 pounds of carrots, or 250 pounds of beef".

Also, if we went to a plant based diet it would free up 30% of the earth's ice-free land that in involved in livestock production.

And as mentioned ...Livestock is a major culprit of wildlife biodiversity lost through habitat change, climate change, invasive alien species and pollution.

[TexasHorseLady]

d_Random, did you look at the link I posted? Also, the sheer amount in poundage is nowhere near the complete story - the nutritional value of celery versus the nutritional value of beef, say, is dramatically different.

Plus, that link you posted regarding how much can be grown on an acre of land? Not the most unbiased in the world, to put it mildly, if you look at their purpose for existing.