It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Eating Beef More Destructive to Environment than Driving a Car"

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by kozmo
 



Something we both agree on. Omnivore, vegetarian, vegan, as long as we all would have this same reasoning behind our meals, we'd all be in a better place. Any diet can be detrimental to our environment, it's up to us to create the change we're so avidly fighting for.



Ah yes, breathing room.


That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. I do not condemn vegans, although I don't believe in it as a cause. That being said, I don't prosthelytize about vegans not eating meat either. I just want MY PERSONAL choices to be respected as you want yours to be respected. I can assure you, I never put meat infront of my vegan friends.
I respect their personal choices.


Again, it is all about HOW we choose to put food on our tables and the impacts levied on the environment as a result of it. Thanks DeadFlag!




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 





Vegans are worse than the Jehovah's Witnesses.


well i guess when you're on the side of god... lol

and yes, i admit i have perhaps helped turn this thread into a "us" and "them" debate, rather than sticking to the original sentiment...

so here's one...

A meat-fed world now appears a chimera. World grain production has grown more slowly than population since 1984, and farmers lack new methods for repeating the gains of the `green revolution.' Supporting the world's current population of 5.4 billion people on an American-style diet would require two-and-ahalf times as much grain as the world's farmers produce for all purposes. A future world of 8 billion to 14 billion people eating the American ration of 220 grams of grain-fed meat a day can be nothing but a flight of fancy. -- Alan B. Durning and Holly Brough, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by never_tell
reply to post by kozmo
 





Vegans are worse than the Jehovah's Witnesses.


well i guess when you're on the side of god... lol

and yes, i admit i have perhaps helped turn this thread into a "us" and "them" debate, rather than sticking to the original sentiment...

so here's one...

A meat-fed world now appears a chimera. World grain production has grown more slowly than population since 1984, and farmers lack new methods for repeating the gains of the `green revolution.' Supporting the world's current population of 5.4 billion people on an American-style diet would require two-and-ahalf times as much grain as the world's farmers produce for all purposes. A future world of 8 billion to 14 billion people eating the American ration of 220 grams of grain-fed meat a day can be nothing but a flight of fancy. -- Alan B. Durning and Holly Brough, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.


Um, didn't Jesus and the Apostles fish???
Didn't Jesus feed his followers by multiplying the loaves and the fish???
Didn't God command the jews to slaughter each a lamb and mark their doors with it's blood??? Come on now, let's not make this a theological issue.


Perhaps we could solve that problem by NOT turning our grain into ethanol, no? Further, as pointed out by another poster, the amount of grain that can be produced is finite and dependant upon the amount of arable land upon which to grow grains, no? Also, it is not necessary for us to feed livestock grains as most animals survive just fine on natural grasses - hence free-range livestock - which is what my family chooses to consume. Finally, to reach your solution it would require an abundant amount of genetic modification and fertilizer to keep up with grain demand as described by you. Doesn't sound very God-like or environmental to me.

I understand your point, but animal-derived protein will become more and more of a necessity in feeding the people's of the world. Again, and I will repeat this ad nauseum, ad infinitum - it is not WHAT you eat - it is HOW the food that you eat is grown and procured. Procured NATURALLY is the only way for a sustainable world.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 





Um, didn't Jesus and the Apostles fish??? Didn't Jesus feed his followers by multiplying the loaves and the fish??? Didn't God command the jews to slaughter each a lamb and mark their doors with it's blood??? Come on now, let's not make this a theological issue.


wrong god! lol...

"Mahayana Buddhism argues that if one pursues the path of the Bodhisattva for enlightenment, one should avoid meat eating to cultivate compassion for all living beings. Similarly, in Theravada Buddhism, avoiding meat eating for the purpose of cultivation of metta (loving kindness) is also seen to be in accord with Buddhist Dharma."

further..

"In most Buddhist branches, one may adopt vegetarianism if one so wishes but it is not considered skillful to attack another for eating meat."

i have still much to learn...



[edit on 19-12-2007 by never_tell]

[edit on 19-12-2007 by never_tell]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Shar_Chi
 


Sorry Shar... Thanks for the U2U. This got lost on the page change.

First off, UN reports and WIKI are hardly definitive, in my opinion. I am not here to continue to debate the alleged science behind this. I made that abundantly clear at the onset of this thread. I will not be drawn into a tet-a-tet now either.

To address your next point... the meat that my family and I eat is free-range beef. It is not penned up, shot-up with steroids and antibiotics, nor is it fattened with feed nor fodder. The beef that we eat spends it's days just as any other animal would... grazing in the sunshine, drinking water from a spring fed pond etc... It is put down very humanely. We're not Stananists for Pete's sake and we're certainly not interested in unnecessary suffering of animals.

I understand where many of you are coming from with respect to the meat industry. But keep in mind, Industrial Agriculture as a whole bastardizes the environment daily - be it beef or corn, chickens or soy. That is why I continue to harp on the notion that it is not WHAT you choose to eat but rather HOW what you eat is produced and procured.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by never_tell
 


Which is PRECISELY why I recommended that we not make this a theological issue.


Again, similar to statistics, we could go back and forth and back again on the theology of this - but I will resist the urge to do so.


Again, the crux of my argument - repeated ad nauseum, ad infinitum - is ensuring that HOW your food came about is more important than WHAT it is you choose to eat.

Thanks to all of you for a fun and enlightening debate. It's getting late in my part of the world and dinner is calling.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
But keep in mind, Industrial Agriculture as a whole bastardizes the environment daily - be it beef or corn, chickens or soy. That is why I continue to harp on the notion that it is not WHAT you choose to eat but rather HOW what you eat is produced and procured.

Let me get this straight without any further ambiguities... you disagree that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a meat-oriented diet. Correct?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 





It's getting late in my part of the world and dinner is calling.


i hope no animals were harmed in the making of "said" dinner... for everyone's sake!



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
For every cow you don't eat, I'm going to kill three.



Christ, people go on about how it's "wrong to hurt the animal kingdom." I guess wolves are committing genocide.
It's the natural order of things to eat prey species as a predator, and the predator animals know this very well.

But I guess you believe that lions and tigers and snakes are all freakish creations of humans, right? Not natural and morally wrong?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Oh here's another guy who can't comprehend what the thread is actually about *golf clap*



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I wanted to respond to Shar_Chi, but didn't get a chance for several hours; now the thread has moved on. Job thingy got in my way.


Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Some good points there. But don't forget, cattle in arid areas take huge amounts of fodder to bring to market. So we are back at square one - feeding cattle instead of feeding humans.


In the US west, particularly the "cattle belt" that runs through Texas, the grass is quite nutritious for cattle, and the bulk of their weight gain comes on grass, frequently 3 or 4 pounds per day on grass alone in the wet season. The feedgrains are used in feedlots at the end of the steer's life, to produce the fatty marbling of meat that was traditionally a sign of quality meat. But the bulk of weight gain comes from grass, which is what makes ranching economical in the first place, especially when compared to farming the same piece of ground, and having to irrigate.




As for the Bison, there were 60 - 100 million before the culls (disgusting, lets not even go there). Now you have 100 million cattle. In hindsight, they should've just kept the bison eh?
I think the point is cattle numbers worldwide have increased substantially.


Yes. Some ranchers have begun experimenting here with raising buffalo for profit. Wal-mart even sells buffalo steaks here. The price is outrageous though. Buffalo are difficult to herd, and cannot be corralled behind any fence they can see light through--they will literally push each other through the fence until some are killed or the fence is down. Like wise, buffalo cannot be shipped by tractor trailer rigs, since they begin rocking in unison in an attempt to free themselves, and risk overturning the trailer.

The future of american beef probably includes "beefalo," the cattle/bison hybrid. The thing about wild buffalo is that they seem immune to brucellosis which if true would have major cost savings for dairy and beef industiries.

Not arguing either side, just a bit of background for the whole discussion.

.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
For every cow you don't eat, I'm going to kill three.



Christ, people go on about how it's "wrong to hurt the animal kingdom." I guess wolves are committing genocide.
It's the natural order of things to eat prey species as a predator, and the predator animals know this very well.

But I guess you believe that lions and tigers and snakes are all freakish creations of humans, right? Not natural and morally wrong?


when's the last time you saw wolves, lions or tigers farming animals for consuption and profit?

anyway, meat eating in the wild is beneficial as it helps keep herds/packs strong culling out the sick and old...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I wanted to respond to Shar_Chi


Sure thing, I won't dispute your points there. I really was just pointing out the irony with the bison, not suggesting commercial farming per se. Although, in Australia I definitely think meat eaters should be farming native kangaroos rather than cloven-hooved cattle, which are a major factor in desertification.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Shar_Chi]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Let me get this straight without any further ambiguities... you disagree that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a meat-oriented diet. Correct?


I'll bite.

I think it really depends on the terrain and weather conditions. For example in my country (Malaysia) I'm pretty certain livestock and poultry as a food source is better for the environment. Water isn't a problem because it rains almost all the time here and as a result the grass grows pretty fast. A bare patch of land will be completely covered in vegetation within 10 days if left alone. So grazing animals would not need to be fed feedstock and they usually aren't.

I'm not so sure what the situation is for poultry, though, but if it were free-range birds, then it really isn't a problem either (more than enough bugs around).

If we were to come up with enough land for farming, we'd have to clear-cut more of our rainforests. You know how environmentalists will get all up in arms over that.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


here's some info for you

1.The heavy dependence on imported raw materials such as corn and soybean as ingredients for their feed rations. The currency crisis, which the country is facing, makes it very costly to maintain the levels of import to sustain the poultry and swine industries. It is imperative that alternative sources of local feed ingredients are found to reduce the dependence on imported ingredients.

2.The high concentration of animals within specific locations leads to environmental pollution unless waste management methods are implemented to avoid the raw discharge of effluents into the country's water resources. The problem of environmental pollution is more acute with the swine industry because of the religious aspects associated with the problem.

source

i especially like the part about dumping into the "country's water sources"...clean as a whistle...



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Yeah, I think Beachcoma raises a fair point, and I somehow doubt Malaysia has a water shortage. But of course we come back to the whole methane thing, which is a major factor in all the reports, regardless of what country you're in, so less livestock is going to be better, notwithstanding supervolcanoes


I really don't know enough about the conditions there to dispute, although I'm sure you wouldn't want multinationals to start clearing everything to make Malaysia the next Brazil. As noted above, runoff contaminants are always a huge prob, especially with any intensive poultry farming. And then there's the whole SARS thing



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by never_tell
 


You should note that that report is 9 years old, during the Asian Financial Crisis. The situation with regards to water has been addressed in that time. We've been having a 'Clean River Campaign' at it's still on-going. Of course it's difficult to be 100% clean, but we are doing our best.


Originally posted by Shar_Chi
But of course we come back to the whole methane thing, which is a major factor in all the reports, regardless of what country you're in, so less livestock is going to be better, notwithstanding supervolcanoes


Methane is a tricky thing, especially in my country. You see, we eat primarily rice. Rice comes from rice paddies. Vegetation submerged in water tends to rot a bit and produce methane.... so we're damned either way. No need to worry about volcanoes, though. Those things are in Indonesia



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Fair enough, well presented argument there, directly addressing the topic with your own regional experience



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Keep your slimy hands off my moo cow. I like my steaks and burgers, Great protein and you know your not in liberal Yankee country when you smell the cow Pooh. I live in Florida, The largest moo cow state and we are very happy about that. Now if we could get rid of the democrats here we would have allot more oxygen. I think Al Gore is worse than all the cows in Florida.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Beef is a staple.

You can have the pork, and regrettably the chicken, but when you take a brother's beef you have a problem on your hands.

I will fight! for my beef!

Eating it is more destructive than driving a car?

I have visions of toxic plumes of FART rising above the city..



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join