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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins No it doesn't. A lot of beef is raised on land you can't grow crops on.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 The vast majority of animals killed for their meat spend all or part of their lives in CAFOs.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins Not cattle. They spend a few months in feed lots but most of their lives are spent on the range. Cattle do not do well in too close quarters.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 The point of those few months is to fatten them tf up, which means feeding them a ridiculous amount of crops. That's where those feed conversion ratios come from. And cattle are just about the least efficient.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins Not really. Most of the feed is still hay with some scrub barley or wheat or oats thrown in. Its not like there is a shortage of sub par grain available.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 You're confusing a few different things. Beef may be raised on land you can't grow crops on, but, for example, 80% of our corn output goes to cattle feed stocks. Oats and Alfalfa are closer to 95%. So yeah, a shitload of land is used to grow crops for cattle production - in addition to the land they graze.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 You're talking about grain production as if the market produces grain and then decides what to do with it after, but that's not how capitalism works at all. Crops are produced in accordance with market demand, and demand for grains certainly qualifies. Also, corn is a very common element of cattle feed, which we 100% can and do eat.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins So when you grow a crop and due to lack of rain or too much rain or early frost or snow and the grain is too damaged for human food what do you do with it? Well one solution is feed it to animals. Cattle, pigs and poultry all eat sup par grain and do very well on it. That is exactly how capitalism works. You make the most of your resources. When life hands you a lemon you make a lemonade stand.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Well, what's your source on that? I find it very difficult to believe that a whopping 36% of crops just happen to wind up getting spoiled by the elements.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins Years and years and years of experience. What is your source? A book in the library of stupid?
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Well, pardon me for not taking the word of a random stranger on the internet. something tells me your "experience" could be better categorized as daydreaming.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins Nope. Why don't you ask any farmer out there. They will set you straight. What is known as feed grains are feeds that are not fit for human consumption. Some of it is grown specifically for animal feed but much of it is grow to feed humans but due to 'crop failure' is fed to animals instead. Animals are a good safety valve for sup par crop disposal.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Maybe you should do some research of your own on the environmental impact of animal agriculture. Things aren't always what they seem, and if you just believe everything you're told you'll never get anywhere.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins I have. Why don't you make a field trip and I will show you around the farms and ranches were I grew up and many of my friends still live.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 I've worked on farms, dude, and working on a farm tells you what one farm does. But there are 2.2 million farms in this country. Good luck visiting them all.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@BlueVeins Imagining thinking 80% of corn and 95% of oats only go to cattle because of spoilage 😂

Apparently farmers are more incompetent than any of us realized 🤷‍♂️
BlueVeins · 22-25
@QuixoticSoul He's not the brightest cow on the rape rack. 🤭
Carazaa · F
@BlueVeins And A plant diet cures cancer, but University of California has proven that we have to cut our meat consumption to survive as a planet, and as humans. This is common knowledge now.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa It is absolute bunk. An anti human agenda at its worst.
Carazaa · F
@hippyjoe1955Love you, but disagree from the research right now!🌷
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa The research is bought and paid for propaganda. You must be really naive to have fallen for it. You can get any result you want if you are willing to pay some 'researcher' to research for that answer. That is why there are so many conflicting research papers out there. Someone pays a researcher to find X the next guy pays a researcher to find anti X. Guess what the researchers find what they are paid to find. Amazing.
Carazaa · F
@hippyjoe1955 And its a fact that the amount of meat we eat is not healthy for us. I don't want to continue debating because I think it is not up for debate. Have a nice night.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Not true at all. Our life spans have increased substantially over the last number of years. Our consumption of meat hasn't changed.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 As has obesity and related illnesses.

So really, being a fatass is good for you.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul Which has nothing to do with meat consumption. Lack of physical exercise is a much greater contributer to obesity than is meat or vegetables or fast food or.... Any time you put in more calories than you expend you wind up with fat build up. It is the way we are built. Do I have to explain basic biology to you as well?