Veg/Vegan and changing the world

[Aleksander Krstic]

Hi,

I have a question about Steve's blogging and twittering about how being a veg/vegan saves water and pollutants?

How is that possible?

I figured it would save water by not having to feed so many animals in the farms but that seems a bit stupid.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Aleksander Krstic

Hi,

I have a question about Steve's blogging and twittering about how being a veg/vegan saves water and pollutants?

How is that possible?

Meat production is a drain on water supplies too. Again, beef scores worst. According to Waterwise, the not-for-profit group focused on decreasing water consumption in the UK, it takes 17 times as much water to produce a kilogram of beef as it does to grow a kilogram of maize.

Put another way, 13 litres are needed to grow one tomato, 200 litres go into a 200ml glass of milk and it takes 2,400 litres of water to produce a 150g hamburger.

These are examples of 'water footprints' - the amount of fresh, and increasingly scarce, water (not including rain) it takes to produce food. (Extracted from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/meatethics.shtml)

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. (Extracted from: Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns)

[scorpio1980]

Considering that vegitarians make up only 4% of the populous, and that only .02% of the populous is vegan I highly doubt it makes much of an impact. Besides we can have sustainable farming, and raise animals in a cleaner more efficient manner. All meat does not come from large factory farms, infact my meat comes from a local farmer who has on average 100 cows at any given time. A cow could feed me for well over a year. Big farms used for commercial meat is the problem, not the small organic guys. We could also say soy destroys the rain forrest, and corn destroys the mid west. The grass fed beef I eat comes from cows that eat grass, and roam free, so that means limited waste. Also, alot of the land where grass fed ranches are,are also not suitable for farming anyways, and having animals enriches the soil. Don't just blame meat, blame the corporate scum bags who produce it,and the cheap bastards who buy the commercial product. These same scum bags also happen to be the ones who produce soy milk.

[funchy]

Cantando raises some great points.

Also understand that the manure animals produce is a form of pollution. It can make wells or freshwater sources undrinkable. Unlike human waste, livestock farms have no sewage treatment plant. They store it in massive open lagoons, and periodically dispose of it by spraying it on crops. If a bad storm comes, the lagoons have been known to flood over or crumble.
Waste, animal waste and human health - The Issues - Sustainable Table



Even "grass fed" animals out on pasture are pooping out raw, untreated, pathogen waste. Then we wonder why there is E Coli showing up on spinach or in household wells.

Runoff from factory farms goes into waterways and results in fish-kills, dead-zones, closed beaches, and long-term damage to fisheries/ecosystems. In my local area, the problem are the chicken waste ending up in estuaries and then the Chesapeake Bay, and the result is pfisteria which causes huge fish kills and is a danger to people. We know these kills trace back to "hot" chicken manure being spread and then washed into creeks, but nobody wants to take action because that would cost chicken farmers money. In Delaware, chicken production is one of the top agricultural products for the state... home of Tyson, Purdue, and a few other industry giants.
Pfiesteria and Chattonella new evidence of linking to animal waste manures
Maryland on lookout for next pfiesteria outbreak



The manure used to help fertilize crops is not clean. Even once the pathogens die off, we still have contaminants. Now they're finding those chemicals being absorbed by the food crops we eat, tainting even "organic" crops:
Crops absorb livestock antibiotics, science shows — Environmental Health News

Ruminating livestock such as cows produce quite a bit of waste gas. A few cows wouldn't matter, but when you're talking billions of cows, it's a problem: livestock produces 28% of the greenhouse gasses released in the USA. And unlike any other industry or individual, there are no pollution controls for livestock farms
EPA - Ruminant Livestock - Frequent Questions

It's a local dirty industry, bringing down local property values and lowering the quality of life for neighbors.

Consider the processing plants (slaughterhouses). Once they cut off the usable meat for butchering and ship the bone and other big bits to rendering, there is still a massive amount of blood, intestinal contents, and other bodily fluids. This is supposed to be well treated before it's released, but the sheer amount & concentration make it difficult. Sometimes the burden is passed to the local community who have to pay to upgrade community sewage treatment plants to deal with all this waste. Sometimes it leaks, is spilled by trucks, is sprayed on open land, or otherwise escapes. Now you've got a biohazard spill on the road in front of your home or leaking into the creek that feeds your reservoir.

One good example we know a lot about were the three horse slaughterhouses (in IL and TX) which were regularly cited for spills and other environmental violations.
Horse slaughter dream could be financial nightmare | Horsetalk - International horse news

Blood spill on public road:




You might also want to read up on the world environmental damage meat production causes. Our hunger for cheap meat fuels clearing of South American rain forests, to make way for cheap soy and for beef cattle grazing. People say they want to save the rainforest, but you can't if you're helping to support those who slash-and-burn the land.
Deforestation in the Amazon


Some other links you may find interesting:
The Impact of Industrialized Animal Agriculture on the Environment | The Humane Society of the United States
The Environmental Impact of a Meat-Based Diet
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/.../cesspools.pdf
Manure
The Impact of Factory farms on the Environment
Food & Water Watch — Food & Water Watch

[Aleksander Krstic]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Considering that vegitarians make up only 4% of the populous, and that only .02% of the populous is vegan I highly doubt it makes much of an impact.

I personally think that each of our "smallest" actions have a very big impact on the world.

[painofsalvation]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Besides we can have sustainable farming, and raise animals in a cleaner more efficient manner. All meat does not come from large factory farms, infact my meat comes from a local farmer who has on average 100 cows at any given time.

And how exactly do you feed 6 billion people with "happy cows"? Meat is only available for the elite, organic meat is only available for a even smaller elite. While we live in a system driven by profit, it will always be like this. Until, of course, the planet runs out of resources.

[James81]

As if not eating meat will suddenly make cows stop drinking water. lol

[painofsalvation]

Originally Posted by James81

As if not eating meat will suddenly make cows stop drinking water. lol

Cows reproduce artificially because there is a great demand from consumers. Why do you think there are more farm animals than humans in the world? Once we stop eating they'll stop breeding and killing.

[ginkgo]

Here is an anology of why it is better to eat lower on the food chain. Say humans only ate people. Then you would need to do everything that they are doing but then with millions of more people so they could be food for others.

By not eating meat, you do more to help the ecology of the planet and protect against global warming than doing anything else including switching to a hybrid car. In a groundbreaking 2006 report, the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

As far as water, in the midwest there is the Ogalalla aquifer. It is an underground resevior of water with billions of gallons of water. They use the water to grow plant foods. In 30 years the water will be used up, 85% of the plant foods grown in the U.S. are to feed the animals that we eat. Unlike produce, the meat and dairy has to be refrigerated from farm to your table.

In all honesty that is very different than you hunting an animal like bisen (deer) in the wild and cooking it for a group of 15 people or catching fish and bringing it to be cooked and served. If the fat person had to run after his meat to kill it, he would not be so fat.

But we can sit at home on the internet while watching TV and have the air conditioning keeping us cool, call a food place and they bring food over for us to eat. Even kings and queens 1,000 years ago did not have it this nice. As Cartman on South Park says, "Sweeet!"

[James81]

Originally Posted by painofsalvation

Once we stop eating they'll stop breeding and killing.

If you say so.

[Cantando]

When I was a kid, from a working class background, growing up in the 50's and 60's, meat (especially beef) was a costly thing to buy, something you only had on a Sunday, if you were lucky. Chicken was the more usual meat to have. We ate more offal in those days as well, as it was cheaper - liver, kidneys, brains, heart, tongue, cheeks, trotters, tripe, even lamb's testicles! Bones were boiled up (to provide stock for soup) and then given to the dog. Nothing was wasted.

Now, most people in the west can afford beef every day, so no one bothers with offal any more. I'm not saying we should go back to eating offal, but why are we so addicted to eating large quantities of prime meat every single day? Is it really necessary?

If we just cut back a little, and tried to eat locally produced meat from sustainable farms, rather than factory farmed meat, imported from thousands of miles away, it would make a difference.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Cantando

We ate more offal in those days as well, as it was cheaper - liver, kidneys, brains, heart, tongue, cheeks, trotters, tripe, even lamb's testicles! Bones were boiled up (to provide stock for soup) and then given to the dog. Nothing was wasted.

Now, most people in the west can afford beef every day, so no one bothers with offal any more. I'm not saying we should go back to eating offal, but why are we so addicted to eating large quantities of prime meat every single day? Is it really necessary?

If we just cut back a little, and tried to eat locally produced meat from sustainable farms, rather than factory farmed meat, imported from thousands of miles away, it would make a difference.

I think we should go back to eating offal. The brains and organs of grass-fed animals are extremely nutrient-rich, much more so than the muscle flesh that people are so fond of.

And nothing is more satisfying than home-made beef and chicken broth made with bones and marrow—in addition, they add important minerals and digestion-aiding gelatin to the diet.

When people eat steaks or pork chops now they probably eat a lot more than when animals weren't grown to be so lean, because they're not as satisfying.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by James81

As if not eating meat will suddenly make cows stop drinking water. lol

Hey James,

Meat is generally produced from domesticated animals. Domesticated animals are intentionally bred for slaughter to meet the demand of the meat buyers. They don't go out breeding in the woods at night -- when and to whom they breed with is controlled by the farmer. Dairy cows are forcibly inseminated to ensure they're pregnant each year, even if they're not really receptive to a bull's advances. In other words, WE control exactly how many cows, pigs, and chickens exist, and 99.9% of it is done in order to fill orders for meat & make money. (I don't say 100% because a tiny few are kept as pets, working stock (eg oxen), or show animals).

If meat intake was suddenly cut in half, there wouldn't be a demand for more cows, so breeding would cut way down. Every less cow in the US domestic herd is many thousands of gallons of water saved each year. You may not think it important now, but as freshwater supplies dwindle in some parts of the country, over the next few decades this is going to be an important issue. Right now several US states are fighting over water rights, and the amount of water available in their big rivers just is not enough to meet demand. In Colorado the ownership of rain water is so serious they had a ban on homeowners using rain barrels to catch roof run-off to water their own yard.
In Colorado, Rain Barrels Are Illegal. Yup. » GroovyGreen.com - Start Today :: Save Tomorrow

[James81]

Originally Posted by funchy

In other words, WE control exactly how many cows, pigs, and chickens exist,

We like to think so, don't we?

We man. We control all. Ooga Uga.

[liamona]

It's encouraging that more people are raising buffalo and grass-fed cows, since properly managed pasture land creates highly diverse and stable grass ecosystems, which in turn preserves wildlife habitat.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by James81

We man. We control all. Ooga Uga.

What does that mean?

[funchy]

The Startling Effects of Going Vegetarian for Just One Day

"If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save:

● 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months;

● 1.5 billion pounds of crops otherwise fed to livestock, enough to feed the state of New Mexico for more than a year;

● 70 million gallons of gas -- enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare;

● 3 million acres of land, an area more than twice the size of Delaware;

● 33 tons of antibiotics.

If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would prevent:

● Greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 1.2 million tons of CO2, as much as produced by all of France;

● 3 million tons of soil erosion and $70 million in resulting economic damages;

● 4.5 million tons of animal excrement;

● Almost 7 tons of ammonia emissions, a major air pollutant.

My favorite statistic is this: According to Environmental Defense, if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads. See how easy it is to make an impact?"

[funchy]

Originally Posted by liamona

It's encouraging that more people are raising buffalo and grass-fed cows, since properly managed pasture land creates highly diverse and stable grass ecosystems, which in turn preserves wildlife habitat.

I respectfully disagree.

Wildlife such as natural bison and deer are being gunned down, excessively hunted, and fenced out of cattle land. Cows are NOT a natural part of our ecosystem. Even the wild herbivores not directly competing for the grass are being exterminated, out of paranoia they might spread brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, and other infections from cattle herd to herd.
The Yellowstone Bison Brucellosis Myth- Buffalo Field Campaign

Natural wild predators such as wildcats, foxes, and wolves are gunned down on sight. Cattlemen don't want to risk losing a dollar or two if a calf might be taken. This is not a habitat or diverse ecosystem; this is more like high density commercial beef production on taxpayer pasture land.
Destruction of most large animal herd migrations has happened, and one article says "losing migrations may result in ecosystem collapse". Even the tiny herds of bison left are in danger, as they're kept off the seasonal grazing lands they need.

Even smaller species are vanishing, thanks to humans; take for example the endangered status of the Prairie Dogs. According to their organization, "The black-footed ferret depends on large prairie dog towns for food, shelter and raising its young. The plan stems from more complaints from the ranchers who graze their cattle on the public land. Even though the U.S. Forest Service generates a mere $3,300 a year from these grazing permittees, the government is again bending to political pressure by even considering this heinous poisoning plan. Not only does this plan kill prairie dogs with poison, it jeopardizes the entire prairie dog ecosystem the prairie dogs support including hawks, ferrets, foxes, burrowing owls and more. "

Cattlemen also hate wild horses, so thanks to the growing popularity of grass-fed cattle, we're also losing Mustangs, Nokotas, and other wild herds. This may not be as much of a natural loss, but it's a symbolic loss & a real loss of tourist dollars.
American Mustangs Killed to Make Room for Cattle Grazing

This is how the Bureal of Land Management (Fed govt agency) is solving the wild horse "problem" to keep cattlemen happy: they round the wild horses up en masse, hold them indefinitely in crowded conditions (at taxpayer expense), and quietly send some to slaughter in Mexico or Canada. This doesn't seem like good ecosystem management to me.



So the bigger picture is that taxpayers are handing over Federal lands for cattlemen to use for almost nothing -- we're lining their pockets. In return, they're emptying our natural lands of wildlife until nothing but cattle and grass is left. And in the meantime grazing, manure, and related erosion is wrecking watersheds. Here's one example of an Arizona herd destroying the watershed:
Livestock Grazing Threatens Fossil Creek Restoration, Endangered Wildlife

The only groups coming out with "proof" cattle are helping the ecosystems seem to be the cattlemen and the studies the cattle industry pays for.

Every dollar spent on this kind of meat is a dollar spent supporting an industry that eradicates entire ecosystems and empties prairies of life. It's factory farming, just without the buildings.

[SaySay]

Originally Posted by funchy

I respectfully disagree.

Wildlife such as natural bison and deer are being gunned down, excessively hunted, and fenced out of cattle land. Cows are NOT a natural part of our ecosystem. Even the wild herbivores not directly competing for the grass are being exterminated, out of paranoia they might spread brucellosis, chronic wasting disease, and other infections from cattle herd to herd.
The Yellowstone Bison Brucellosis Myth- Buffalo Field Campaign

Natural wild predators such as wildcats, foxes, and wolves are gunned down on sight. Cattlemen don't want to risk losing a dollar or two if a calf might be taken. This is not a habitat or diverse ecosystem; this is more like high density commercial beef production on taxpayer pasture land.
Destruction of most large animal herd migrations has happened, and one article says "losing migrations may result in ecosystem collapse". Even the tiny herds of bison left are in danger, as they're kept off the seasonal grazing lands they need.

Even smaller species are vanishing, thanks to humans; take for example the endangered status of the Prairie Dogs. According to their organization, "The black-footed ferret depends on large prairie dog towns for food, shelter and raising its young. The plan stems from more complaints from the ranchers who graze their cattle on the public land. Even though the U.S. Forest Service generates a mere $3,300 a year from these grazing permittees, the government is again bending to political pressure by even considering this heinous poisoning plan. Not only does this plan kill prairie dogs with poison, it jeopardizes the entire prairie dog ecosystem the prairie dogs support including hawks, ferrets, foxes, burrowing owls and more. "

Cattlemen also hate wild horses, so thanks to the growing popularity of grass-fed cattle, we're also losing Mustangs, Nokotas, and other wild herds. This may not be as much of a natural loss, but it's a symbolic loss & a real loss of tourist dollars.
American Mustangs Killed to Make Room for Cattle Grazing

This is how the Bureal of Land Management (Fed govt agency) is solving the wild horse "problem" to keep cattlemen happy: they round the wild horses up en masse, hold them indefinitely in crowded conditions (at taxpayer expense), and quietly send some to slaughter in Mexico or Canada. This doesn't seem like good ecosystem management to me.



So the bigger picture is that taxpayers are handing over Federal lands for cattlemen to use for almost nothing -- we're lining their pockets. In return, they're emptying our natural lands of wildlife until nothing but cattle and grass is left. And in the meantime grazing, manure, and related erosion is wrecking watersheds. Here's one example of an Arizona herd destroying the watershed:
Livestock Grazing Threatens Fossil Creek Restoration, Endangered Wildlife

The only groups coming out with "proof" cattle are helping the ecosystems seem to be the cattlemen and the studies the cattle industry pays for.

Every dollar spent on this kind of meat is a dollar spent supporting an industry that eradicates entire ecosystems and empties prairies of life. It's factory farming, just without the buildings.

Good points, all.
Not to mention that the whole 'pastured happy meat' movement is really a fairy tale of the wealthy and the privileged. Because of course, there is no way to meet national demand for meat, using this sort of method.

So the poor continue eating processed, low quality crap, while the privileged advocate for a system that can't possibly exist, all the while eating like little piggies and telling themselves it's for a greater good. And the environmental destruction continues, and we all suffer for it.

Why not just enjoy the REAL solution. Mmmm veggies nom nom nom

[scorpio1980]

Commercial farms are bad, I agree. I buy my beef, chicken, and eggs at a local farm. He practices sustainable farming, uses manure for fertilizer for crops. Chickens run wild eating insects, cows eat grass, no grains. Organic meat isn't always about the priviledged. Go to the whole foods, and it doesn't cost that much more for grass fed beef. Local farmers are usually cheaper.

[liamona]

I agree! Lately I've gotten so many leads for finding new local sources of pasture-raised pork, chicken, and buffalo.

All it takes is just asking around. A local farmer's market is a good place to start. If you live near a rural area, just drive around the neighborhood—often people who raise chickens properly sell their eggs, and will have a sign out front announcing that.

Here's a couple of other good online resources:

Pastured Products Directory - Eat Wild

"Eatwild's Directory of Farms lists more than 1,100 pasture-based farms, with more farms being added each week. It is the most comprehensive source for grass-fed meat and dairy products in the United States and Canada.

Eatwild Criteria: Producers listed on Eatwild certify that they meet our exacting criteria, assuring that their animals and the land are well-treated, that their products are exceptionally high in nutrition and free of antibiotics and added hormones"

Local Weston Price Chapters

"Local chapters help you find locally-grown organic and biodynamic vegetables, fruits and grains; and milk products, butter, eggs, chicken and meat from pasture-fed animals."

[SaySay]

And what happens when every person in America is eating free-ranged, grass fed, pasturized, whatever meat? You think American land can support 9 billion chickens, free ranging? 1 billion other land animals, grazing.

No.

[themaster]

You know what chicken little would say "the sky is falling!"

There is plenty of water to go round.. anyone think the ice caps are melting for a reason.. ohh yah we could all use a little more water?

These our fear sells
- environment
- not enough water
- unhealthy meat (though I will admit that cloned is apparently the baddest apple?)

[liamona]

Originally Posted by SaySay

And what happens when every person in America is eating free-ranged, grass fed, pasturized, whatever meat?

It would be a good direction to go in, especially when you realize that runoff from factory farms contaminates the land that organic fruits and veggies are grown on. This is an issue that affects everyone.

[Creative]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

If the fat person had to run after his meat to kill it, he would not be so fat.

Love the way you think!

[scorpio1980]

The person eating a high fat diet which usually includes meat is less likely to be fat. The person who goes crab overload are the ones too fat to go and pick crops from fields. So the one that needs to hunt an animal for food won't be fat in the first place.

[liamona]

I like how Dr. Jan Kwasniewski (the creator of the "Optimal Diet") contrasts his diet (high-fat, low-carb, moderate protein) with other common ones:

"Pasture"

A high-carb, low-fat, grain and plant-based diet typically eaten by peasants through the ages.

"Piggish"

The standard Western diet that mixes high amounts of carbs, fats and proteins, like the slops given to pigs to fatten them up.

[funchy]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

The person eating a high fat diet which usually includes meat is less likely to be fat. The person who goes crab overload are the ones too fat to go and pick crops from fields. So the one that needs to hunt an animal for food won't be fat in the first place.

I have some concerns about this statement:

One can avoid eating meat and still eat a high fat diet. Avacados, nuts, seeds, plant oils, & coconuts are a few high fat foods that come to mind. Plus Americans love to fry everything, so now we're adding vegetable oils. There is a misconception vegan are deficient in protein & fat in their diet, but the reality is the vegan diet is as varied as the non-vegan's.

Fat people get fed even if they're not fast enough to hunt. This is also true of the infants, elderly, and infirm-- as a function of human society. In other words, obtaining hunted food in the diet has nothing to do with the lovehandles the mom grew since having her last kid.

I am not aware of any proof that exceeding a certain % of fat in the diet makes one less likely to be fat. If I think about what the people I know eat, the fattest people are those eating the SAD diet, which is loaded in fat. Let's not forget that modern food is coated in fat, seasoned with fat, deep fried, and drizzled in cheese (milkfat). We add fat, salt, and sugar to almost everything! Even American vegetables are coated in a thick layer of butterfat or lard. The idea that Americans need more fat in our diet is hard for me to believe.

[jeff3]

There are lots of different possibilities for solutions besides the either/or solution the extremists in this argument are offering. Surely there is a way everyone can have what they want and eat what they want without funchys fears of killing the the planet manifesting. I think it will take compromise for this to be worked out, on both sides. All the irrational/emotional fears will have to be set aside and that would mean looking at the progress that has been made in the agri-industry as well as the problems. It would also mean looking at the fact that not everyone would thrive on a veggie diet.

The real issue with many people is that they are just simply against eating meat because of personal issues with killing animals and this emotional based position polarizes them in a way that blinds them to everything thing except the negatives. I don't deny they are there, it's just a smaller part of the picture than some make it out to be. There are also solutions other than shutting down the meat industry and making the whole world going vegan....which seems to be the idea with some. It really shows what the motive is when there is no mention of compromise and all I read is about is the evil Ranchers and the government conspiracy to help them rape the earth for $$$. I suppose each argument has at it's heart two diametrically opposed ideas and that's what I see here, I'm sort of in the middle, I personally know people way out on the right and then I read several persistent posters here who are way on the left. The extremes cannot co-exist and likely cannot even see the others point, even when well made, because of their polarized minds.

[KazeCraven]

The real problem is that there are just too many people.

We need to cut the human population down to half a billion worldwide.