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 »
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.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
BlueVeins · 22-25
@kayoshin Also, manure is made of chemicals and is just as capable of fucking the environment.
kayoshin · 41-45, M
@BlueVeins wrong that is based on the assumption that we grow crops exclusively for animals, that only happens in isolated cases it doesn't make sense financially nor logistically.
In fact people grow many plants they can't consume like cereals and most of that we would just have to throw away (since we don't need straw for fire or housing anymore) but livestock turns that garbage into food and byproducts.
You can't reduce the culture fields since agriculture is inefficient ( our fault we cant eat most of what we grow because we don't have the gastric juices or the 4 stomachs) and people won't be less hungry if you eliminate meat. It's simple: look at the prices of greens vs meat, price is always a good gauge for how much it costs to make something, meat is cheap greens are expensive, take meat off the table and make greens a more sought after commodity: makes greens even more expensive thus it's an even more lucrative industry so you have even more agricultural fields popping up. It's not rocket science it's basic economy.


Manure is made of chemicals... You thought that one long? Everything is made of elements in the periodic table so by that standard there is no nature or there is no artificial. Use your logic my man, the difference is between organic processed manure and man made chemical agents that destabilise soil and ensure the death of that ground in the long run.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@kayoshin
manure is made of chemicals and is just as capable of fucking the environment.
Says a city kid who never spent a day on a farm. I remember one year when Dad decided to clean the corrals and put the manure on a 2 acre patch of land we sometimes gardened. We moved the garden for the next few years and worked the manure into the soil. Ours was not very good land and a real bumper crop of biblical proportions was 30 bushels to the acre. The first crop we put on that 2 acre plot of land yielded 200 bushels to the acre.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 What sort of an uneducated dumbass farmer doesn't know that manure can present an environmental risk? This is basic shit, man - when you have too much manure, it will fuck up your water sources.

Land application has been and remains the predominant method for disposing of manure and recycling its nutrient and organic content (USDA-EPA, 1999). If manure is properly managed, plants assimilate most nutrients. When too much manure is spread on the land, nutrients build up in the soil and enter nearby water resources through runoff or leaching.

In 1997, a large percentage of recoverable nutrients from manure (nutrients that are available for application after collection and storage) were in excess of what the cropland controlled by animal feeding operations could assimilate, based on reported acreage and crop yields (Gollehon et al., 2001). Excess manure nutrients indicate a potential for environmental damages resulting from nutrient transport to water resources. Actual impacts depend on the magnitude of the nutrient surplus, whether manure nutrients leave the farm, the nutrient management practices used on the farm, the vulnerability of water resources to nutrient pollution, and agroecological conditions such as soil type and climate (Jones, 2001).

While small and medium-size livestock and poultry operations produce a large share of total nutrients, the largest operations generate the largest share of nutrients in excess of crop needs (Gollehon et al., 2001). This is consistent with a finding (Roka and Hoag,1996; Henry and Seagraves, 1960) that large operations tend to view manure as a waste rather than a resource, and dispose of it on land closest to the facility.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/41576/18586_aer824b_1_.pdf?v=0

Manure becomes a serious environmental issue when there is too much of it. This is why nations that produce an oversupply of it have to be careful. Some are more strict about it than others - Netherlands does a much better job of managing that situation than the US.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@kayoshin [/quote]In fact people grow many plants they can't consume like cereals[/quote]

HMMMM, if only there were some kind of solution to that one!

It's simple: look at the prices of greens vs meat, price is always a good gauge for how much it costs to make something, meat is cheap greens are expensive,

That would be true if we lived in a pure market economy. We do not. Meat and dairy are massively-subsidized by the government. It's an artificial price.

Manure is made of chemicals... You thought that one long? Everything is made of elements in the periodic table so by that standard there is no nature or there is no artificial.

Thank you for refuting the "logic" you tried to use in your last comment. You're the one who pulled the "chemicals" shit in the first place (no pun intended). While you're correct that synthetic fertilizers can cause problems, we wouldn't have to use so many if we could farm fewer crops to begin with, such as by reducing animal agriculture.

Oh @hippyjoe1955, if you realized how ridiculous that was, I'm sure you wouldn't have said it.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins So what do you propose we do with all the sub standard grains that no human will eat? What do we do with all the 'trash' (straw etc) since we can't eat it and there is way too much to simply plant over it next year. Now if only there were something that could eat the trash and the substandard grains. Hey how about we use animals that naturally eat that kind of stuff. Maybe cows?
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 How about stop planting shit that humans can't eat or wear and learn to live a less wasteful lifestyle. There's a potential that some substandard grain would have to be put to less productive uses such as fertilizers, but it wouldn't compare to the amount of corn, oat, and soy farming that would be saved in the process.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!! GASP!!!! The stuff left over is from growing stuff humans eat!!!! Here is a hint. What food do you take off the outside, cook the inside, eat the outside and throw away the inside? Corn on the cob obviously. So what do you do with all the stalks and stems and leaves and cobs? No human can eat them. How about we grind them up and feed them to pigs and cows? They can eat them and will thrive on them. Bonus points if you figure out what we can do wit the surplus cows and pigs.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 lol your buddy here is claiming that we wouldn't have enough fertilizer without cow manure and you're apparently pissed that we would have excess biomass without animal agriculture. If you'd take one second to think about what you're typing, you'd realize how profoundly your arguments cannibalize each other.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippie, if pigs and cows only got the corn byproducts, nobody would be talking about this. Why do you insist on being so fucking retarded day in and day out?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul The retards are all on your side of the debate. As any farmer knows there are grains, not just corn that are fed to animals because something in the growing season caused them to be unfit for human consumption. Sometimes drought sometime too much rain sometimes too much snow sometimes too early a frost. What do you do with a crop that you grew to feed humans that humans can't eat because it isn't up to standard? It happens a lot. When I was growing up on the farm we would have a wonderful crop one year and get top dollar for selling wheat to Russia. The next year we would get a frost just as the grain is filling and Russia wouldn't buy the grain nor would any Canadian or US flour mill. What do you do with three thousand bushels of trash wheat? You can't leave it in the field. How about you feed it to cattle and hogs and chickens and turkeys?
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Well, what do you think about the cattle farming that's conducted with feed crops that were never intended for human consumption?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins And what do you do about cattle grazing on land that could never be cropped?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 You dumbass, with your retarded hillbilly anecdotes. We don't feed 80% of our corn to cows because it's unfit for human consumption. We do it because corn is fucking cheap - and because it makes the cows fatter and shortens the lifecycle.

Due to subsidies, corn is literally cheaper to buy, than it is to grow, and feedlots end up paying a couple of bucks a bushel.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul Probably the same idiots that try to run their cars off of corn ethanol.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Uh, anything else. Build on it. Lumber on it. Skeet shoot on it. Jog on it. Bike on it. Set up telescopes on it. Allow it to serve as a functional habitat for wildlife and plants. Your turn to answer my question now.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins So growing corn for ethanol is a good idea in your mind? Cattle can graze with out disturbing wildlife. I think that is the point I have been making. Growing grain crops for human or animals or cars is much harder on the wildlife than cattle. Cattle make the land healthier.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Jesus, are you physically incapable of answering simple questions?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins It appears you are completely incapable of understanding how life works on this planet. Kind of funny reading your silly posts though. Please keep it up. I need a good laugh.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@BlueVeins No he is not. Notice how ethanol came completely out of nowhere. And why?
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 What do you think of cows that are raised on corn that was grown for the specific purpose of cattle feeding? This shouldn't be a difficult question, dude.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@BlueVeins So humans are going to eat all that corn or what other crop do you think we humans need to replace it with? You do realize that that practice is restricted to a very small area in the US and eastern Canada don't you. No one else does that. NZ Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa, Western Canada and north west USA don't feed corn to cattle.
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 Dude, you live in Canada. We're talkin' about your home turf here. Also, cattle feeding is common in the EU. Maybe not corn, specifically, but feed in general.

https://www.dairyglobal.net/Nutrition/Articles/2018/6/Growth-in-EU-cattle-feed-production-302583E/
BlueVeins · 22-25
@hippyjoe1955 I noticed you still haven't given an answer btw.