Can A Vegan Diet Save The World?

[chrisrushton]

I've been doing a bit of research on the effects of vegan diets and thought I'd share my recently acquired knowledge with you awesome people.

I've always been frustrated that people don't put veganism in context when it comes to the environmental impacts so I decided to compare the carbon dioxide reduction of making this choice to emission due to cars using the roads at peak times.

I wrote the full article at my website here (includes a picture of two adorable polar bear cubs):

Can Vegans Really Save The World? | Green Technology Information

The headline points:

It turns out that if 1 in 5 people decide to be vegan it will easily offset carbon dioxide produced by cars in the UK. I've not even considered the contribution of Methane and oxides of Nitrogen.

In context, I have no real agenda short of being honest and doing what's best to save the world. I'm not a vegan and I don't represent any vegan group. I don't represent any car company either. I did this just for my own amusement but since the result is quite interesting I thought I should share it with the world.

Bear in mind that this was just an aside from a University project that I did. There has been no peer review or anything. I've made my best efforts to check the validity of my numbers but if you're planning on quoting me in a report to your government you might want to re-do the numbers yourself (just saying).

[russianrocket]

Are your numbers for vegans, soley based on what PETA says? Are do you have actual non biased factual numbers ?

And with that said. What kind of vegans? What kind of meat eaters? Are the vegans importing their food? Do their hybrids require batteries that must be mined, and transported all over the world? Do their electric cars receive electricity from a wind farm or from a coal plant? Do the meat eaters eat factory farmed food? How much meat are they eating? Etc etc etc nauseum.

[chrisrushton]

I'm just using PETA values. It's not ideal but since this is quite a hot topic it's difficult to get truly unbiased numbers. If you've got a better number I'd really like to know.

The carbon emission is based purely on the act of driving. You take the average speed and compare it to known emissions for cars of different types at different speeds then weighted. It's not the best way but it's OK for a first approximation. I don't have live micro-simulation car by car data for york or I'd use it.

The hybrid car represents a small fraction of the fleet but it's emission is considered and calculated the same way as any regular car.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by chrisrushton

I'm just using PETA values. It's not ideal but since this is quite a hot topic it's difficult to get truly unbiased numbers. If you've got a better number I'd really like to know.

The carbon emission is based purely on the act of driving. You take the average speed and compare it to known emissions for cars of different types at different speeds then weighted. It's not the best way but it's OK for a first approximation. I don't have live micro-simulation car by car data for york or I'd use it.

The hybrid car represents a small fraction of the fleet but it's emission is considered and calculated the same way as any regular car.

I get the driving numbers. It's the people numbers which I'm extremely skeptical about. There is biased, and then there is BIASED. They pretty much hate anyone who isn't on their side. I highly doubt that anything woudl come from them, that would actually be factual. They are probably comparing vegans who grow their own food and ride bicycles, to a "meat eaters" who eat a ton of McDonalds, importing all of their food, and driving huge SUV's.

And, I mention hybrids, because hybrids are usually what vegans tend to want to drive, as it's part of their "saving the world" plan. Even tho, the carbon emissions coming out of those, aren't calculated correctly, because a lot of it comes from the production of them in the first place. As well as what happens to them once the batteries are depleted. Nickel mining is one of the most destructive types of mining.

I don't think you got what I was trying to say lol.

[chrisrushton]

they're average values. you can't do a calculation like this based on a single group. there are probably vegans who grow their own food and have almost zero carbon footprint compared to some who import most of their food and would have a significantly higher one. just as if 100 people who read that article decide to go vegan, some will have less of a carbon footprint than others.

the peta number claims to be based on a study, although they don't cite their source. they also differentiate between carbon saved by driving a prius and carbon saved by eating a vegan diet which implies that they are not combining the two for their final figure. like i said before, if you've got a better number i'd love to hear it.

[Andrew Brunelle]

What will save the world is a deviation from the domination system and control structures, not a change in diet. And I also noticed that articles like this are so biased that it is impossible to extract fact from fiction. There is a lot of dogma about the vegan diet (and most all diets in fact), and the complete restriction of animal products, which we have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years seems like it could cause pain and suffering in at least part of the population. How many people have tried going vegan and found out it didn't work for them? Tons. How many people have stayed vegan for years? Very few.

Sure, there are people who can go vegan, but even 20% of the population is not going to happen, except by necessity (i.e. there is no more meat). I really just don't see it happening. And meat can be very good for you, it's just factory farmed meat that is bad. Veganism is a choice, and if you choose it, choose it for yourself, not as a way of "saving the planet." That is naive thinking at best. Monoculture farmland is still pretty bad considering how it contributes to all sorts of ecological issues. It's more than one step to saving the world.

[Beingist]

Not sure what to make of this, but when I first read the title of the thread, I read, "Can A Vegan Die & Save The World?"



Carry on.

[Clint Cora]

Imagine if everyone in the world went vegan. Althought I can't prove it but I would imagine that the level of sports and athletics, particularly at the higher levels such as the professionals and the Olympic levels, will suffer drastically. I haven't heard of any top NHL, NBA or NFL players for example, who are vegans.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by chrisrushton

they're average values. you can't do a calculation like this based on a single group. there are probably vegans who grow their own food and have almost zero carbon footprint compared to some who import most of their food and would have a significantly higher one. just as if 100 people who read that article decide to go vegan, some will have less of a carbon footprint than others.

the peta number claims to be based on a study, although they don't cite their source. they also differentiate between carbon saved by driving a prius and carbon saved by eating a vegan diet which implies that they are not combining the two for their final figure. like i said before, if you've got a better number i'd love to hear it.

You're not going to get it. Casting doubt on figures and studies is what he does...When he disagrees of course.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

You're not going to get it. Casting doubt on figures and studies is what he does...When he disagrees of course.

Really? I cast doubt on figures and studies, because they are usually wrong. Especially ones from PETA, where they don't even show the figures or studies, minus a few numbers to get their point across!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by chrisrushton

they're average values. you can't do a calculation like this based on a single group. there are probably vegans who grow their own food and have almost zero carbon footprint compared to some who import most of their food and would have a significantly higher one. just as if 100 people who read that article decide to go vegan, some will have less of a carbon footprint than others.

the peta number claims to be based on a study, although they don't cite their source. they also differentiate between carbon saved by driving a prius and carbon saved by eating a vegan diet which implies that they are not combining the two for their final figure. like i said before, if you've got a better number i'd love to hear it.

I don't have a better number, because I think the entire concept is a waste of time, and no one has done any adequate studies about it. You've shown me a heavily biased group, showing me numbers, based on a study, with no source. ANYTHING is better then that.

You can't compare statistics between the billions of meat eaters, and the small amount of vegans, and expect it to be anything worthwhile.

Becoming a vegan, means nothing. You can be a vegan, and make more of an impact on the world then a meat eater. Or you can be a meat eater, and have less of an impact on the world then a vegan. This entire conversation is pointless with out real numbers.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Really? I cast doubt on figures and studies, because they are usually wrong. Especially ones from PETA, where they don't even show the figures or studies, minus a few numbers to get their point across!

Must be a strange coincidence that you disagree with this particular cause then.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Must be a strange coincidence that you disagree with this particular cause then.

It's no coincidence at all. I've disagreed with this assessment for years, and it's just a coincidence that the "proof" of the argument, is so lack luster.

[kat]

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

Imagine if everyone in the world went vegan. Althought I can't prove it but I would imagine that the level of sports and athletics, particularly at the higher levels such as the professionals and the Olympic levels, will suffer drastically. I haven't heard of any top NHL, NBA or NFL players for example, who are vegans.

Tim VanOrden's been claiming some impressive running results in the last few years as a raw vegan: Tim VanOrden's Running Raw Project - Results - he's 43 years old, and routinely beating some of his most serious competitors, who are mainly in their 20s.

Summary list of vegan/vegetarian athletes - I haven't confirmed the accuracy of the list, and some are just vegetarian, but there have been some Olympic successes by vegetarian and vegan athletes.

And people like Robert Cheeke (a vegan bodybuilder) certainly are photogenic: http://robertcheeke.files.wordpress....ziaarticle.jpg

Edit: as for the original poster's question: no. Being vegan cuts down on carbon footprint, all else being equal, but that's a far cry from 'saving the world'.

[xavvyvar]

This, it seems to me, is a very interesting thread, but the discussions have been going in circles without really answering the question. I would like to suggest that everyone here take a look at an article written by Dr. Joseph Mercola: Why Vegetarianism Will Not Save the World, and a book by Lierre Keith entitled: The Vegetarian Myth. Also, there are several videos reviewing the book on Youtube. Just do the appropriate searches. Then, come back and make some serious contributions to this thread.

xavvyvar

[Albalida]

Originally Posted by xavvyvar

This, it seems to me, is a very interesting thread, but the discussions have been going in circles without really answering the question. I would like to suggest that everyone here take a look at an article written by Dr. Joseph Mercola: Why Vegetarianism Will Not Save the World, and a book by Lierre Keith entitled: The Vegetarian Myth. Also, there are several videos reviewing the book on Youtube. Just do the appropriate searches. Then, come back and make some serious contributions to this thread.

I read The Vegetarian Myth, and thought she beautifully deconstructed the moral presumption of veganism. It was personal, and very sensible and cohesive only in its own terms.

Then she went on to deconstruct veganism as a nutritional benefit, and even I could see on the first read that she cherry-picked and fabricated sources to support her own ridiculous conclusion: that we are primarily carnivores, and that most of every single one of our meals should be meat, because cereals and grains are addictive drugs and pasta causes schizophrenia.

Why should I believe her when she writes against veganism as benefitting the whole natural environment? Even if it makes sense that, if we accept that the natural environment is under threat by, say, deforestation because we clear fields either to graze cows or grow corn to feed cows-- then agriculture really takes space, and everybody turning vegan would mean more forests must be cleared to grow vegetables.

Dr. Mercola cites Keith, but I get the impression that his expertise is that of personal health-- not agriculture (and its mechanisms that would make agriculture unsustainable) or environmentalism.

[Peek]

If so, I'm afraid we get outnumbered by pigs. And they are smarter.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Albalida

Even if it makes sense that, if we accept that the natural environment is under threat by, say, deforestation because we clear fields either to graze cows or grow corn to feed cows-- then agriculture really takes space, and everybody turning vegan would mean more forests must be cleared to grow vegetables.

I don't think you're taking into account all the meat industry's agricultural needs. Growing corn to feed cattle that is housed in farms takes more resources than feeding yourself directly.

[firenexx]

Even if you're raising cows organically on a pasture, you still have a giant area of land that must grow grass, and another area to harvest hay to feed them in the winter (if you live in an area that has a cold winter). It is more efficient to grow the plants and eat them, than to grow the plants, feed them to another animal, and then eat the animal. They teach you that in highschool biology, only a small percent of the energy of a consumed food actually goes to the animal 2 tiers up in the food chain. Grass - Cow - Human. It is an inefficient conversion. Tomato - Human is more efficient. Math, math, math, basic biology. I didn't need to pull any numbers from PETA or talk about averages or differences in lifestyle between McVegan and Backwoods Pig Farmer.

That being said, it is ridiculous to think that that and only that will save the world. There are myriad other factors causing environmental degradation and wasted land use, such as monocropping and cars and coal mining and fracking and Monsanto and old people draining Medicare. The vegan diet is not the one magical thing that would "save the world". A more realistic assumption would be that maybe, sometime soon, people will switch from predominately meat- and grain-based diets to fruit and vegetable based diets, and if they eat meat and dairy products as well, that's fine. Grains and meats use quite a lot of land for the limited nutrition they offer (in their typically consumed form, RussianRocket, mind you) so rather than saying that people should completely stop eating them, one could be more realistic and hope that fat Americans will stop eating 95% meat and pasta and white flour.

Yes, I would consider that grains have almost as bad an impact on the environment as CAFO meat. Monocropping, pesticides, and the fact that they are used to feed the poor CAFO animals. Oh yeah, and GMO CORN ETHANOL. I guess if I want to avoid GMOs completely I'll just stop driving. The price of land in the midwest is dependent on the price of corn.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by firenexx

Even if you're raising cows organically on a pasture, you still have a giant area of land that must grow grass, and another area to harvest hay to feed them in the winter (if you live in an area that has a cold winter). It is more efficient to grow the plants and eat them, than to grow the plants, feed them to another animal, and then eat the animal. They teach you that in highschool biology, only a small percent of the energy of a consumed food actually goes to the animal 2 tiers up in the food chain. Grass - Cow - Human. It is an inefficient conversion. Tomato - Human is more efficient. Math, math, math, basic biology. I didn't need to pull any numbers from PETA or talk about averages or differences in lifestyle between McVegan and Backwoods Pig Farmer.

That being said, it is ridiculous to think that that and only that will save the world. There are myriad other factors causing environmental degradation and wasted land use, such as monocropping and cars and coal mining and fracking and Monsanto and old people draining Medicare. The vegan diet is not the one magical thing that would "save the world". A more realistic assumption would be that maybe, sometime soon, people will switch from predominately meat- and grain-based diets to fruit and vegetable based diets, and if they eat meat and dairy products as well, that's fine. Grains and meats use quite a lot of land for the limited nutrition they offer (in their typically consumed form, RussianRocket, mind you) so rather than saying that people should completely stop eating them, one could be more realistic and hope that fat Americans will stop eating 95% meat and pasta and white flour.

Yes, I would consider that grains have almost as bad an impact on the environment as CAFO meat. Monocropping, pesticides, and the fact that they are used to feed the poor CAFO animals. Oh yeah, and GMO CORN ETHANOL. I guess if I want to avoid GMOs completely I'll just stop driving. The price of land in the midwest is dependent on the price of corn.

Well, there are a few things you haven't seemed to consider.

Cows, create a lot of natural fertilizer, needed to grow natural plants for vegans.

Cows eat grass, which is always naturally growing, and doesn't need any kind of harvesting in order to feed them. Some types of grass are even great as fresh feed, and as hay, so you don't need two types of plants.

While you can store hay, to feed cows in the winter, you can not efficiently store plants, to feed vegans. It also takes a lot more food to feed a vegan, compared to the nutrients in a lb of meet. And even then, the food you feed the cows, is much easier to grow, and is usually ALL used to feed them, vs growing food for vegans.

You haven't actually shown us any numbers to discredit growing cows for food. Not even made up ones.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by kat

Tim VanOrden's been claiming some impressive running results in the last few years as a raw vegan: Tim VanOrden's Running Raw Project - Results - he's 43 years old, and routinely beating some of his most serious competitors, who are mainly in their 20s.

Summary list of vegan/vegetarian athletes - I haven't confirmed the accuracy of the list, and some are just vegetarian, but there have been some Olympic successes by vegetarian and vegan athletes.

And people like Robert Cheeke (a vegan bodybuilder) certainly are photogenic: http://robertcheeke.files.wordpress....ziaarticle.jpg

Edit: as for the original poster's question: no. Being vegan cuts down on carbon footprint, all else being equal, but that's a far cry from 'saving the world'.

Can't we all agree, that perhaps some people on this planet, ARE better on a vegan diet? But also agree, that it doesn't mean a vegan diet works, or is the best?

Also, Robert Cheeke is tiny compared to just about half the guys in my gym, who aren't professional body builders.

My room mate, can eat crap, and only 2 times a day, and workout 3 times a week, yet is HUGE. My other room mate eats all day, and can't gain an ounce. People, are just DIFFERENT.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Well, there are a few things you haven't seemed to consider.

Cows, create a lot of natural fertilizer, needed to grow natural plants for vegans.

Well then...Let them live

Originally Posted by russianrocket

You haven't actually shown us any numbers to discredit growing cows for food. Not even made up ones.

Excepting the OP, the same could be said for anyone in this thread, including you and I. I can understand the reluctance, considering your reaction to the first numbers posted.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Well then...Let them live

Excepting the OP, the same could be said for anyone in this thread, including you and I. I can understand the reluctance, considering your reaction to the first numbers posted.

I haven't really posted anything that needed any numbers or made any real claims.

Also, the person who brings the argument, is the one who has the burden of proof.

The OP didn't post anything that showed anything. His original numbers are accurate, only if the PETA numbers are accurate. But we'll never know, because they only gave one number, didn't name the study, or show any information from it. And you can't trust anything, with such secracy, from such a militant organization. You can assume that it's probably wrong, or extremely biased.

lol and I get what you are saying, with the " just let them live", but you know that discounts the rest of what I said, because not eating them, would require much more plants to be grown. And, lets be honest. Very few people raise cows so that food can be grown for vegans. No one really has pet cows, and you don't really see wild cows.

They've been bred, to be food, and it shows.

[kat]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Can't we all agree, that perhaps some people on this planet, ARE better on a vegan diet? But also agree, that it doesn't mean a vegan diet works, or is the best?

Also, Robert Cheeke is tiny compared to just about half the guys in my gym, who aren't professional body builders.

My room mate, can eat crap, and only 2 times a day, and workout 3 times a week, yet is HUGE. My other room mate eats all day, and can't gain an ounce. People, are just DIFFERENT.

We almost entirely agree. A vegan diet works, in the sense that some people are happy on it throughout their lives. I don't think it's best for everyone; I never have. People are, indeed, different - similar in many ways, but far from identical.

I'm not saying Cheeke is gigantic. I'm just pointing out that there are some muscled vegans out there. Given that a fairly small percentage of the population is vegan, you wouldn't expect the biggest guys to be vegan unless that was a huge advantage for building muscle - and who seriously claims that?

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Well, there are a few things you haven't seemed to consider.

Cows, create a lot of natural fertilizer, needed to grow natural plants for vegans.

Cows eat grass, which is always naturally growing, and doesn't need any kind of harvesting in order to feed them. Some types of grass are even great as fresh feed, and as hay, so you don't need two types of plants.

While you can store hay, to feed cows in the winter, you can not efficiently store plants, to feed vegans. It also takes a lot more food to feed a vegan, compared to the nutrients in a lb of meet. And even then, the food you feed the cows, is much easier to grow, and is usually ALL used to feed them, vs growing food for vegans.

You haven't actually shown us any numbers to discredit growing cows for food. Not even made up ones.

I won't argue against raising some animals on grasslands, but that's certainly not the way that most meat is farmed in the USA today.

Animal dung isn't needed as fertilizer; it's one option, but not the only one.

As for not being able to efficiently store plants for vegan consumption - take a look at dried beans and grains. You can argue that these aren't ideal foods, but you'll need a lot less of them if they're going directly for human consumption than if you're storing them to feed to cows, which in turn are to be eaten by humans. When you say "It also takes a lot more food to feed a vegan, compared to the nutrients in a lb of meet", you're ignoring all the plant matter that it took to create that pound of meat.

Take a look at Seeing the Garden in the Jungle - and modern urban farming, including with hydroponics.

Large scale agriculture full of monocultures is a disaster. But even worse than using grains grown this way for human consumption is to use them for animal consumption. Read Cornell Science News: Livestock Production

Edit: for what it's worth, I probably like PETA less than you do.

[Requiem]

I'm not yet of the opinion that veganism can be sustained through multiple generations without a lack of health blossoming at some point. The brain needs quite a bit of fatty acids which humans don't produce particularly well from other fatty acids. It's possible that it could be sustained, but I'm rather skeptical.

Apart from that, there are the issues of transportation. Getting organic bananas from Ecuador probably won't be saving the world.

My two cents:
-Get rid of factory farming completely.
-Get rid of mass-produce completely.
-Buy quality local food.
-Consider growing your own crops.
-Consider pescetarianism.
-If one eats land animals, buy local. Research the origin of the food.
-Only the import the very, very best things that you can't get locally.

[Albalida]

"Locavorism"'s definitely something to keep in mind. Pescetarianism, though... I have Blue Planet, a BBC documentary, on DVD. It has an extra feature where they talk about the new kind of deep-sea fishing techniques, that aren't sustainable. We're catching fish before they're old enough to breed, and some species (new ones, that our great-grandparents didn't used to eat) to possible endangerment, and some kinds of fishing nets can scrape corals right off the ocean floor. I forgot where I saw the documentary on river fishing, but just gave me the impression that that industry's worrying about how long it can go on for too (but it seemed to be more about pollution, than it was about leaving less salmon than could parent the same number next season or something.)

Meat from sheep and goats are supposed to be more environment friendly, I read in a Time magazine article that I can't find and didn't explain why in any case. If everyone switched to mutton, to a point where producers started factory farming sheep/goats to meet the demand, it's just more of the same problem, isn't it? And is that friendlier compared to beef, or friendlier compared to fish? Or friendlier compared to grain?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Requiem

.
My two cents:
-Get rid of factory farming completely.
-Get rid of mass-produce completely.

These are powerful methods for creating widespread starvation.

[Roby]

NO one can save the world and no one can defeat the world. Food chain is the same for all humans beings. Some follow vegetarian and others follow non vegetarian, even gods are non vegetarian.

[firenexx]

You haven't actually shown us any numbers to discredit growing cows for food. Not even made up ones.

No, but I did one better - I referenced your highschool biology class. I'm going to ASSUME that everyone remembers the part about trophic levels and ecological efficiency. Since you were obviously a bad boy and skipped that class, I give you Ecological Pyramid.

Well, there are a few things you haven't seemed to consider.

Cows, create a lot of natural fertilizer, needed to grow natural plants for vegans.

As kat said, only one option. I've never used manure on my gardens; aside from my cat's litterbox waste which goes in the compost along with unusable plant and animal matter. Hardly a significant amount of manure, and I've never run short of compost.

Cows eat grass, which is always naturally growing, and doesn't need any kind of harvesting in order to feed them. Some types of grass are even great as fresh feed, and as hay, so you don't need two types of plants.

You don't need two types of plants, but you do need a completely seperate (and LARGE) area of land where they do not graze, so you can let the grass grow and harvest for hay to feed them in winter.
I should also mention - if cow manure is used to fertilize all those plants that vegans need, then the grass won't have any fertilizer.
I expect some sort of a response like "Well grass grows for years and years in all the fields I've seen and I don't see anyone fertilizing it." So I'll respond to that as if someone already said it:
Grass is no different from any plant. In an untended field, grass grows to seed, re-sows itself, and dies, fertilizing itself. In a pasture, the grass doesn't have much of a chance to die, for it is eaten by cows. Then, the cows poop on the field, which is an even more effective fertilizer since poop decomposes much faster than undigested dead grass. There is still a comparable net loss since much of the energy goes to the cow, but not anywhere near enough to make the field barren. If the cows eat the grass and most of the manure is removed, eventually (I'm talking decades not months) the nutrients in the soil will be depleted.
Not that this is really relevant at all, since cow manure is not necessary for a vegan's survival.
Did you know? Some people install composting toilets, in their own homes. Odorless, well-designed, and the food from the garden goes right back to the garden. This is also irrelevant. I just thought I'd mention it. There is an online book called "Humanure." I guess it's slightly relevant since we are kind of on the topic of the nutrient cycle.

While you can store hay, to feed cows in the winter, you can not efficiently store plants, to feed vegans. It also takes a lot more food to feed a vegan, compared to the nutrients in a lb of meet. And even then, the food you feed the cows, is much easier to grow, and is usually ALL used to feed them, vs growing food for vegans.

Kat answered this well, so I will unnecessarily repeat her answer:

Originally Posted by kat

As for not being able to efficiently store plants for vegan consumption - take a look at dried beans and grains. You can argue that these aren't ideal foods, but you'll need a lot less of them if they're going directly for human consumption than if you're storing them to feed to cows, which in turn are to be eaten by humans. When you say "It also takes a lot more food to feed a vegan, compared to the nutrients in a lb of meet", you're ignoring all the plant matter that it took to create that pound of meat.

But I will also like to add that due to our large brains, we have figured out ways to easily grow some plants throughout the cold months. I harvested my last carrots and beets a few days ago, and that's without any cold frames (just blankets.) It is not too hard to grow kale and cabbage and other cold-weather beasts outdoors, with just the technological wonders that are glass and wood. Not saying I could feed my entire family for the entire winter with a tiny greenhouse, but it is not technologically impossible nor ridiculously inefficient to use cold frames and other smart designs to increase the availability of local raw vegetables in the winter. Once you make a cold frame, you don't have to make it again...
Again, it's just a matter of efficiency. Plant - human > Plant - Animal - Human. You want numbers? The number is roughly 10%, and for a source I refer you to high school biology class, again, which you skipped. So we're not only talking energy efficiency, but land use. Sure, the grass is easy to grow, but the cows take SOOO MUCH FREAKING LAND... This figure could be made up, so I guess you'll have take a couple hours and do the math for yourself, but there is about 2.2 acres of arable land per person on this earth. I'd rather use the land to grow an abundance of plants than to grow an abundance of cows.

I guess we can figure out how many cows you can raise on that amount of land, and how much milk and meat that would yield, how many you could slaughter, and then figure out how much land you'd have left over to grow vegetables. I guess it's interesting. The farmer down the road has a big field for his cows, and he has another field (the same size) for hay for the winter. I would be willing to bet that the amount of vegetables that could be grown on that amount of land would exceed the amount of meat and milk from the cows, and by nutritional density, not only by pound.
Of course, all that is meaningless since I'm not interested in doing any math. Carry on.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by firenexx

No, but I did one better - I referenced your highschool biology class. I'm going to ASSUME that everyone remembers the part about trophic levels and ecological efficiency. Since you were obviously a bad boy and skipped that class, I give you Ecological Pyramid.



As kat said, only one option. I've never used manure on my gardens; aside from my cat's litterbox waste which goes in the compost along with unusable plant and animal matter. Hardly a significant amount of manure, and I've never run short of compost.


You don't need two types of plants, but you do need a completely seperate (and LARGE) area of land where they do not graze, so you can let the grass grow and harvest for hay to feed them in winter.
I should also mention - if cow manure is used to fertilize all those plants that vegans need, then the grass won't have any fertilizer.
I expect some sort of a response like "Well grass grows for years and years in all the fields I've seen and I don't see anyone fertilizing it." So I'll respond to that as if someone already said it:
Grass is no different from any plant. In an untended field, grass grows to seed, re-sows itself, and dies, fertilizing itself. In a pasture, the grass doesn't have much of a chance to die, for it is eaten by cows. Then, the cows poop on the field, which is an even more effective fertilizer since poop decomposes much faster than undigested dead grass. There is still a comparable net loss since much of the energy goes to the cow, but not anywhere near enough to make the field barren. If the cows eat the grass and most of the manure is removed, eventually (I'm talking decades not months) the nutrients in the soil will be depleted.
Not that this is really relevant at all, since cow manure is not necessary for a vegan's survival.
Did you know? Some people install composting toilets, in their own homes. Odorless, well-designed, and the food from the garden goes right back to the garden. This is also irrelevant. I just thought I'd mention it. There is an online book called "Humanure." I guess it's slightly relevant since we are kind of on the topic of the nutrient cycle.


Kat answered this well, so I will unnecessarily repeat her answer:


But I will also like to add that due to our large brains, we have figured out ways to easily grow some plants throughout the cold months. I harvested my last carrots and beets a few days ago, and that's without any cold frames (just blankets.) It is not too hard to grow kale and cabbage and other cold-weather beasts outdoors, with just the technological wonders that are glass and wood. Not saying I could feed my entire family for the entire winter with a tiny greenhouse, but it is not technologically impossible nor ridiculously inefficient to use cold frames and other smart designs to increase the availability of local raw vegetables in the winter. Once you make a cold frame, you don't have to make it again...
Again, it's just a matter of efficiency. Plant - human > Plant - Animal - Human. You want numbers? The number is roughly 10%, and for a source I refer you to high school biology class, again, which you skipped. So we're not only talking energy efficiency, but land use. Sure, the grass is easy to grow, but the cows take SOOO MUCH FREAKING LAND... This figure could be made up, so I guess you'll have take a couple hours and do the math for yourself, but there is about 2.2 acres of arable land per person on this earth. I'd rather use the land to grow an abundance of plants than to grow an abundance of cows.

I guess we can figure out how many cows you can raise on that amount of land, and how much milk and meat that would yield, how many you could slaughter, and then figure out how much land you'd have left over to grow vegetables. I guess it's interesting. The farmer down the road has a big field for his cows, and he has another field (the same size) for hay for the winter. I would be willing to bet that the amount of vegetables that could be grown on that amount of land would exceed the amount of meat and milk from the cows, and by nutritional density, not only by pound.
Of course, all that is meaningless since I'm not interested in doing any math. Carry on.

You really feel that it's necessary to poke at me, with your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ biology comments, trying to get some type of response out of me? It's people like you, that got James banned. Poking the bear, and blaming them when they bite. Your entire post is full of condescension

The only response that you deserve, is that you still haven't shown anything, to prove your point. So we might as well pretend that everyone is wrong, and get over ourselves.