Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is raising meat more harmful to the environment than raising vegetables?

I grew up on a farm and we had some scrub land and sloughs that we never touched. They were kind of sanctuaries for wild life. Coyotes, deer, antelope, badgers, gophers ducks geese snipes are only a partial list of birds and animals that lived near the small ponds. Trees grew all around them and the wild life found shelter food and water there. We would turn our cattle into that area and the year after year there was harmony as we would harvest the cows every year producing hundreds of pounds of beef every year with zero impact on the environment. Not far from the sloughs we would grow grain. Early in the spring we would turn all the soil killing all the native grasses of course that required using a huge diesel tractor to do it. Then we would go over the land planting seed. As we planted we would add chemical fertilizer and some very powerful mercury based poison to kill the worms that would eat our crop. It was not unusual to run over a ducks nest or see baby hares running in fear of the noisy machinery. Late in the spring we would spray the land with dangerous chemicals to control the weeds. Some time later we would spray with another deadly chemical to control the grass hoppers or other blight. Finally in the fall we would fire up the massive combine and burn hundreds of gallons of diesel as we took off the wheat which we hoped was of adequate quality to feed to humans. It often wasn't due to lack of rain or early frost or early snow. What did we do with substandard grain? Fed it to the cows. Now which one of these food sources had the greater impact on the environment? Hers is a hint. It wasn't the cows.
BlueVeins · 22-25
It takes 6 pounds of crops to produce 1 pound of beef, 4 pounds of crops to produce 1 pound of pork, 2 pounds of crops to produce 1 pound of chicken, and 2.5 pounds of crops to produce 1 pound of rabbit. If you accept the premise that farming plants is bad for the environment -- which it clearly is -- then you logically have to accept the fact that farming animals is worse because farming animals generally requires more plant farming than does regular old plant farming. And that's before you take into account massive water usage, manure disposal, transportation, climate control, and other massively destructive aspects of the industry.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Duh, we could do that. We could just eat the plants directly. The vast, vast majority of people already do that to some extent.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins "Pass the dirt, please."
extra round up and a side of mercury with that?@Budwick
kayoshin · 41-45, M
Agriculture has a far greater and long lasting impact. The people that claim animal raising is worse on the environment cherry pic numbers and interpret them as it fits their agenda.
I know they mean well but it doesn't make them objectively right.
Agriculture is destructive and we cannot use a great part of what we grow because we are not evolutionary equipped as herbivores. Animals turn the vast majority of our agricultural excess and byproducts into meat milk, eggs, things we can easily eat and get all the nutrients we need to survive.
People who claim we can and should eliminate animal farming seem to conveniently forget the amount of food that agriculture would have to suddenly produce reliably year after year to sustain us. How much deforestation, soil erosion and chemical additives would that take ? ( And yes since you don't have animal farming you don't have a sustainable source of natural fertiliser so chemical is your only poisonous option). Then to avoid the downfall of crops (it happens but we don't notice it because we just see a rise in prices and we switch to meat) we would need to use more genetically altered crops, use more aggressive pesticides and force more crop rotation to feed everyone.
It may sound ideal to some idealistic animal fanatic but to me it sounds like destroying the ecosystem and possibly most life on earth to save cows and chickens.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 You walking dunning-kruger, you're still bending yourself into pretzels pretending that we don't feed massive amounts of grain to cattle as a matter of cause.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul Did I ever say we didn't? I am simply pointing out much of the grain we feed cattle is not fit for human consumption. You really need to visit a farm some time Your ignorance in these matters is beyond belief.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Something like 12% of the corn we grow goes toward human consumption. You may pretend that farmers are quite this incompetent if you like.
JoeyFoxx · 56-60, M
It’s not about livestock vs vegetation.

It’s about the variety and appropriateness of the farming.

For example, almond farming in California consumes a tremendous amount of water and some farms have had some seriously negative impacts on local water tables.

Meat imported from South America is likely contributing to strip burning in the Amazon.

It’s a bit of an invalid question to presume that it’s an either/or proposition
Carazaa · F
@hippyjoe1955 You are not a very respectful man to women! If you want to win people to Jesus then you need to be less abusive, rude, and obnoxious!
I watch your debates with people who are debating you on Jesus, and if you don't know yet we are to love our enemies and pray for those who despitefully use us, and reach out to the poor. Jesus says These are those who love me, Those who keep my commandments
"And the greatest commandment is to love God, and treat others the way we want to be treated."


I would spend a bit more time in the Bible in the morning before you get on here please, because you are not a loving witness for Jesus.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Carazaa Sorry but I don't fall into PC nonsense. I have no idea if you are actually a woman or someone pretending to be a woman so I treat you exactly the way I would treat an ill informed man. You are simply wrong on the basics and using agendized studies doesn't cut it with me since I know how studies work. Pay enough money and some scientist researcher will tell you that smoking is good for your health. The facts are it is evident to me that you don't know a thing about animals or animal husbandry. May I respectfully suggest that you inform yourself before making a complete twit of yourself by citing studies based on bias.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippie, at this point it’s obvious you don’t know anything about animal husbandry, nor is there any evidence you’ve ever stepped foot on a farm 🤷‍♂️

The irrefutable evidence of you being a complete retard is all around us, however.
SW-User
It's the mass production farms that are the problem not the type of farm you are describing. You know that they don't farm like that any more. It's all set up to be cost efficient at the cost of the environment, animals and humans. It's all about money not sustainability. I wish it wasn't like that, but it's the reality.
SW-User
I haven’t done any research beyond frequently driving between Chicago and Colorado, but from what I’ve observed, it does seem that the cattle is on the rougher terrain. Iowa and eastern Nebraska seem to be nothing but crops, but as you get further west, you see more cattle along with rockier, more desolate terrain that I’d have to believe is less viable for crops. @hippyjoe1955
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@SW-User Yup - but much of the crops you see grown are going to be consumed by the cattle.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955
The cattle are still free range except to be finished for market.
See, that’s where the issue lies. We live in the age of CAFO dominance, so this last step generally involves sending the cow to a feedlot where they put three thousand pounds of corn and antibiotics through its guts.

I’m not sure what this little song and dance you’re doing here is about, but you’re either uninformed or disingenuous. Yeah, you could do agriculture in an environmentally sustainable manner - and some even do. But due to current market and regulatory conditions, most do not.
SW-User
....and ham....and bacon....and fried chicken. @TheOneyouwerewarnedabout
@BlueVeins
[image/video deleted]
BlueVeins · 22-25
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout or of a vaccine lol.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
Altogether it's pretty bad, yeah.
A 212-page online report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. Seventy percent of Brazil’s deforested land is used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder. And in Botswana, the livestock industry consumes 23 percent of all water used. Globally, 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the livestock industry—more than is produced by transportation-related sources. And in the United States, livestock production is responsible for 55 percent of erosion, 37 percent of all applied pesticides and 50 percent of antibiotics consumed, while the animals themselves directly consume 95 percent of our oat production and 80 percent of our corn
kayoshin · 41-45, M
@QuixoticSoul yes but it's funny how they omit some details like: even without livestock humans can only process 20% of corn because we are NOT herbivores we only eat the seeds, while the cows turn the 80% that is garbage to us into food.
Same with oats. So your complaint is that animals make agriculture efficient instead of inefficient.
Also it's interesting how they don't mention that livestock grazing while occupying vast surfaces has an inverse proportionally effect on environment to the pasture area (meaning the bigger the pasture area the smaller the effect on land and vegetation).
The world is not Brazil. Just saying.
Question how much water does Botswana have and how would their life be without livestock? Throwing alarmist numbers without analyzing them is just fools propaganda.
Other question: what would you use for fertilizer without livestock?
How much land do you think you would need without livestock to feed the humans remembering that agriculture without livestock is as low as 5% efficiency as your own example study shows.
What happens when you have a simple event like a bad season? (Google Irish potato famine for the answer).
18% of greenhouse gases produced by animals AND logistics not excluding the logisics and even so the numbers seem inflated as they take numbers of animals per year Into account but most animals registered do not live the whole year to produce gas cause they are on someone's plate so even if a farm produces 3000 heads a year it might only have 1500 alive at a time.
How much greenhouse gases would agriculture produce to substitute meat products realistically considering a large portion of the globe gives poor yelds and many countries have poor agricultural practices and top all that with logistics and storage energetic costs.
Throwing numbers is silly when you don't present the alternative too. It's like only telling a pacient The side effects of the medicine but forgetting to tell them it saves their life. Sure there are consequences to livestock keeping but the alternative is far worse for humans and for the environment (also most life stock perhaps except pigs and sheep in remote areas with no predators, would go extinct)
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@kayoshin
even without livestock humans can only process 20% of corn because we are NOT herbivores we only eat the seeds, while the cows turn the 80% that is garbage to us into food.
Same with oats. So your complaint is that animals make agriculture efficient instead of inefficient.
No, this isn't what they're talking about here. We feed grains to livestock as supplement or finishing feed - and a lot of it. That isn't a reference to the byproducts, but to the grains itself. Looking around, a cow will consume about 2800 pounds of corn (seed) in the feedlot - often as part of an all-grain diet.

This is done to rapidly speed up growth - it used to be that an animal had to mature for a few years before slaughter, now we have it down to 14 months. The crowded environment and rich diet of the feedlot isn't all that healthy for the cows - the rumen is evolved to digest forage, not straight grain. But this can be managed with antibiotics, with yet more side effects for society as a whole.

The world is not Brazil. Just saying.
This is a blurb about worldwide impact, Brazil is part of the world.

Question how much water does Botswana have and how would their life be without livestock?
Botswana has problems with water, they don't have a lot. They export beef, so it's not a subsistence situation. The agricultural sector isn't as important as it used to be due to the current mining boom, but there is a strong traditional aspect to things.

Other question: what would you use for fertilizer without livestock?
We have an overabundance of animal manure, we waste a ton of it, and are forced to burn or dump it - with corresponding environmental damage. And it's far from the only source or method of obtaining fertilizer.

How much land do you think you would need without livestock to feed the humans remembering that agriculture without livestock is as low as 5% efficiency as your own example study shows.
You misunderstood that example. And this is also a strawman because nobody is actually suggesting the whole world go vegan. But actually table-destined agriculture is far more efficient for the calories it produces, which is why most plans for a sustainable future as the population breaks 10 billion has us eating a more plant-based diet, with less meat. The meat-based diet is far less efficient in terms of land/water use, greenhouse gases, etc. Ironically, we know this by studying areas of the world that you accuse of having poor agricultural yields. Surprisingly, it's still an improvement in efficiency.

18% of greenhouse gases produced by animals AND logistics not excluding the logisics and even so the numbers seem inflated as they take numbers of animals per year Into account but most animals registered do not live the whole year to produce gas cause they are on someone's plate so even if a farm produces 3000 heads a year it might only have 1500 alive at a time.
There have been a lot of studies done on this subject. The numbers vary a bit, but they're generally quite high.

How much greenhouse gases would agriculture produce to substitute meat products realistically considering a large portion of the globe gives poor yelds and many countries have poor agricultural practices and top all that with logistics and storage energetic costs.
Less.

Throwing numbers is silly when you don't present the alternative too.
This wasn't a question about solutions, tbh.

But here is a solution, and an answer to the rest of your questions: the answer is not to go vegan. It's to eat less meat. Certainly, Americans especially, will only benefit. It's pretty obvious that while some people in the world can use a bit more meat in their diet - whole swaths of it could use way, way less.
“Then we would go over the land planting seed. As we planted we would add chemical fertilizer and some very powerful mercury based poison to kill the worms that would eat our crop. “



Are we done here?

Mercury accumulates in the soil..
Anyone else see where I am headed here?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Texasgurl I think we just discovered the root of hippie's diminished cognitive abilities.
Exactly!
There’s no praying that away.@QuixoticSoul
BlueVeins · 22-25
@QuixoticSoul @Texasgurl Well I just got wooshed to shit lol.
Budwick · 70-79, M
HippyJoe,

Farming is a difficult lifestyle. It takes a special kind of something to take the risk, deal with ups and downs, amazing financial planning. I wasn't raised on a farm, but did spend time on a family farm. Some of the coolest people I've ever met.

So, I am not speaking from personal experience but it seems to me that most folks don't really understand where food comes from and the effort involved and technology too - to feed as many people as farmers do.

Thanks for what you do. I hope all farmers are as conscientious as you seem to be.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Budwick Hippie isn’t a farmer. He’s a bum-wrangler of some sort or other.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Budwick I left the family farm shortly after I completed high school. It is a wonderful lifestyle and many of the people I went to school with took over their family farms and are still on them. I keep in touch with them and sometimes even help them with their chores. I visited a fellow not long ago that was new to raising cattle. I watched his good looking cows for a bit an noticed one had a slight limp. I recognized it as being foot rot and that he should call in the vet to treat his Red Angus cows. He called the vet but told me that those were Saler cows not Red Angus. I shrugged and agreed. The vet came out in an hour and agreed with my diagnosis and my treatment. As he was putting his long acting penicillin away he turned to my friend and said "Nice looking Red Angus you got there".
Budwick · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 You can take the boy off the farm,.....

I just know that when you write,
I pay attention.
SW-User
Farming produces massive amounts of pollution. Which is why GMO crops and conservation tillage are necessary to pave the way forward. But then again, this only accounts for 8% of the U.S.'s greenhouse emissions. And out of this, 42% of emissions come from animals. I think we should best focus on reducing emissions from vehicles and other sources, as that is what mostly contributes to pollution rather than farming. That is to say, we shouldn't reduce pollution where available in farming sector, but it should not be our priority. We should subsidize studies into GMO crops and regulate their usage so as to not further harm the environment and reduce pollution.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
I guess we need to eat more cows now... that need second hand grain produced with diesel motors to grow fat so we can have a good dinner. In the mean time, we'll just let them fart on the field.
SW-User
I don't know about that shit, but I know that I literally need to eat fruits and vegetables to live 😂
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@SW-User We are omnivores. We need both plants and meats in our diets.
SW-User
@hippyjoe1955 Meat makes my stomach hurt, so no. I eat it, like, twice a month.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@SW-User Good for you. The problem is people who want to control everyone else and what they eat or don't eat. If you want to eat a hamburger or steak every day then enjoy! If you want to eat nothing but carrots have at it. Just don't come up with some cockamame story about how your chosen life style is so much worse than my chosen life style. The funny thing about this life is - No one gets out of it alive.
FurryFace · 61-69, M
uhh the Unicorns ? , so many Animals its a shame you gotta use Poisonous Pesticides Animals gotta eat that with the plant life too , just a small farm of crops for your family would have been nice for the Animals too to have their fill , but when people go into big time production it kills a lot of animals too and takes up way more land and animals lose their homes
JohnOinger · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 what do you think of Porn
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@JohnOinger I never watch it.
TexChik · F
Not at all. We plant winter wheat and oats to graze out cattle in winter. Deer , geese , ducks , quail , and pheasants all benefit from those activities.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@TexChik Raising cattle has very little impact on the environment compared to raising crops. Yes we grew fall rye and winter wheat as well but we had to kill all the other vegetation first. The cows grazed on native grasses just like the buffalo before them. The cattle grazing the native grasses kept the native grasses healthy.
TexChik · F
@hippyjoe1955 we had 3 cuttings on 4 sections of hay ( alfalfa) this summer . It provides browse , Shade , and cover for wildlife . When we grow millet the wildlife get fat . Wildlife has always thrived on the edges of man’s activities
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@TexChik So very very true. I get such a hoot out of a bunch of city kids who have no idea what farming is all about thinking that certain practices are somehow evil. I try pointing out that growing grains is more environmentally intrusive than raising cattle. It makes their heads explode to even think about it.
DearAmbellina2113 · 41-45, F
Short answer: yes.
SW-User
I think a lot of it comes down to farming and ranching practices, and there are smart ways to manage resources and some not-so-smart ways. For example, the Dust Bowl wasn’t caused by livestock.
Unlearn · 41-45, M
The question should be... which is more soulless.
Unlearn · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 yes...
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Unlearn Phylumist!!!
Unlearn · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 ignorant!
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
no vegans are... they put out lots of hot air with all their incessant whining...🤔

 
Post Comment