Author Topic: Episode #663  (Read 10544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2018, 11:23:10 PM »
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2018, 03:10:51 AM »
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture.  You wouldn’t be able to have your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet were it not.  Domestic animals would hardly be able to stack on much fat if they were grazing on marginal land.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4964
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2018, 04:06:26 AM »
Good grazing is the best way humans have to sequester carbon.  No tree planting flashy science projects can compete with it.  Where and how the fuck did all that carbon released from the ground (yes, from the ground) get into the ground in the first place.  Ever wonder where the tens of metres of wonderful carbon rich topsoil in the great plains (and elsewhere) came from; think bison and mammoths.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #33 on: March 28, 2018, 08:18:20 AM »
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.

It's not just grazing but land dedicated to crops for fodder.

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #34 on: March 28, 2018, 09:43:38 AM »
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.

Sure but if the whole world went vegetarian you would probably hurt the developing world.  There are places in the world where grazing cattle is the only option.  The land cannot be converted for agriculture use.  Further, there are a lot of micronutrients necessary for good health that we can get in the developed world from a varied vegetable diet but which would be difficult to obtain in the developing world.

This would lead to weird results.  Either the developing world becomes the only place to eat meat or the developing world takes the opportunity to be the global producer of meat and we are back where we started (just moved the meat industry from one place to another).

That or you just let the people in the under developed areas of the world die.

Your point about some areas of the world not being suitable for agriculture was actually addressed in the podcast.  It was noted that there are some parts of the world that will continue to rely on meat because the available land is only suitable for grazing.

Did you miss that part?

That argument is such a huge red herring. What kind of developing countries are those so unsuitable for agriculture, countries like Mongolia and Greenland? How did they get to have the population they have now, consuming meat and more meat? Again, which developing countries are those whose populations live on meat, the Maasai Mara and the Kalahari desert?

If anything, a common trait shared by practically all developing countries is that the meat consumption per capita (and also the consumption of eggs and dairy) is much lower than that in developed economies. Where are they already getting all their plant food if presumably those regions are unsuitable to grow crops? Could they be getting all the food they don't produce but consume via long-distance trade? Why are those populations supposed to get all their food locally instead of importing a major part of it from some other region? Perhaps should they also produce their LED lights and cell phones locally?

Then there's also that widespread misconception that raising farm animals has no extra economic cost other than environmental. For starters, raising animals is a more labour-intensive activity than growing crops. About one out five workers in the world are employed in the meat and dairy industries.

In addition to all that large labour, animal farming also consumes a lot of energy and material resources (fresh water, land, animal feed, buildings, transportation) which otherwise could be used for other purposes. Finally, animal farms and meat distribution and consumption also represent a serious sanitary hazard (a source of epidemics and of food poisoning outbreaks, a mixing vessel for new pathogens, a source of atmospheric and water pollution, etc.) which detracts production capacity from the economy, thereby, contributing to make us all poorer (or less wealthy).

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8614
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2018, 09:52:04 AM »
...
Your salad has a lot more blood on it than you might suspect.

I worked on a dairy farm, and no, it's not "wholesale slaughter" of small animals. Some are killed, yes, but not all that many. Further, and most importantly, in the U.S. meat industry, where animals are fattened on corn, every ethical disadvantage of a vegetarian diet is multiplied tenfold for a meat diet because of the quantity of plant food fed to the animals.

...
Sure but if the whole world went vegetarian ...

This is a logical fallacy first because "What if...?" is not a valid argument, and second because the whole world is not going to go vegetarian. In the U.S. we have a massively barbaric system that breeds and raises animals in the most cruel ways possible and then takes their life from them, and does it in a way that's an environmental disaster. And though a couple of posters here disagree, we do all this so we can eat a diet that is unhealthy for us.

If Americans cut their meat consumption in half their health would benefit, the environment would benefit, and they'd be building their diet on only half as much cruelty.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #36 on: March 28, 2018, 11:02:42 AM »
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture.  You wouldn’t be able to have your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet were it not.  Domestic animals would hardly be able to stack on much fat if they were grazing on marginal land.

Nope. Cattle are generally raised on marginal grazing land until they are a certain age. Then they’re sent to feedlots where they’re fattened up on grains. 

Cattle used for Grass fed beef are raised much the same way but are sent to lush pastures  for fattening up instead of feed lots.

Most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13258
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #37 on: March 28, 2018, 12:04:04 PM »
Nope. Cattle are generally raised on marginal grazing land until they are a certain age. Then they’re sent to feedlots where they’re fattened up on grains. 

Cattle used for Grass fed beef are raised much the same way but are sent to lush pastures  for fattening up instead of feed lots.

Most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.
This confused and amused me the first time I say grass fed/pasture raised beef.  My cousins raised beef cattle as a result I thought all cattle was pasture raised, as you say, on land unsuited for crops.  They supplemented the grazing with hay, which was likely grown on decent crop land.    Much latter I learned about feed lots.   I assume most of my cousins cattle end their lives in a feed lot.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2802
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2018, 01:41:17 PM »
If the world went vegetarian, what would we do with all the animals?

How long do animals kept for meat live? Once lab meat gets into mass production and can compete on price, they'll probably just breed fewer animals, and the numbers will go down as they cease to be profitable.

Hopefully we'll give large amounts of land back to wildlife, use it for carbon sequestration, etc. Rather than start building cities on it and void the benefits.

A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.

The cattle eat shrubs and prevent tree growth, as do sheep. When keeping farm animals, humans do things like get rid of predators and directly alter the land so that it's more suitable for the domesticated animals.

Coexisting with deer isn't the same as the land being in its natural state. Their existence changes the land and the ecosystem, even if it wasn't cleared first.

And indeed, you have to factor in everything else that goes into it, like using up better land elsewhere to grow food for our food.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 01:44:50 PM by 2397 »

Offline Tim44

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2018, 02:28:52 PM »
Seems like a pointless discussion to be concerned about what will happen to the farm animals if we stop eating them.  They have been breed to be eaten and serve no other purpose.  It seems that every country we export our American diet too gets less healthy and more obese.

The tropical rainforests are being cleared almost solely for cattle grazing.  20% are gone at this point.  Eating less beef is a climate change problem we actually have personal control over, that will benefit the planet, our morals and our health.  No downsides other than changing your diet slightly.

I too am also curious what percentage of the earths population actually needs meat for survival calories.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 02:34:48 PM by Tim44 »

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2018, 03:36:19 PM »
Yeah, habitat loss is one of the major factors with farming. But meat production destroys more, because it requires significantly more land to feed the animals what they need to grow into food.
A common misconception. Most of the grazing land for cattle is undeveloped and very close to its natural state (and not suitable for cultivation and farming). Cattle often coexist with deer, elk, rabbits and other wildlife.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture.  You wouldn’t be able to have your high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet were it not.  Domestic animals would hardly be able to stack on much fat if they were grazing on marginal land.

Nope. Cattle are generally raised on marginal grazing land until they are a certain age. Then they’re sent to feedlots where they’re fattened up on grains. 

Cattle used for Grass fed beef are raised much the same way but are sent to lush pastures  for fattening up instead of feed lots.

Most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CarbShark,

Are you trying to prove my point?  I wrote ‘a lot of the grazing land used for meat (and dairy) production is also suitable for agriculture’, not ‘most of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for growing crops.’  ‘A lot’ isn’t the same as ‘most.’
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Ron Obvious

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2018, 04:34:23 PM »
All the discussion about meat consumption, grazing and food production misses the giant elephant in the room: overpopulation.  As an early advocate for ZPG, I find it utterly frustrating that this topic appears be completely ignored.  All our problems with habitat loss, climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, and species extinction can be laid at the feet of overpopulation. But nobody wants to talk about it, apparently out of misguided deference to religion or a fear of appearing racist.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with overpopulation now rather than live in an overcrowded concrete hell, standing shoulder to shoulder with other people eating crickets.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8614
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2018, 05:32:47 PM »
Hopefully we'll give large amounts of land back to wildlife, use it for carbon sequestration, etc. Rather than start building cities on it and void the benefits.

I think we can take it for granted that we'll keep building more and bigger cities as the population continues to explode.

All the discussion about meat consumption, grazing and food production misses the giant elephant in the room: overpopulation.  As an early advocate for ZPG, I find it utterly frustrating that this topic appears be completely ignored.  All our problems with habitat loss, climate change, resource depletion, deforestation, and species extinction can be laid at the feet of overpopulation. But nobody wants to talk about it, apparently out of misguided deference to religion or a fear of appearing racist.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with overpopulation now rather than live in an overcrowded concrete hell, standing shoulder to shoulder with other people eating crickets.

^ This!

I've long been an advocate for mandatory universal sterilization. What's so great about humans that we have to infest the galaxy and ruin other planets like we're on the verge of ruining this one? Let's just stop breeding and let the Earth get back to being a garden.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Tim44

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2018, 06:47:03 PM »
So you would have us reduce the population 50+%, just so we can lower the greenhouse gases from food production and continue excessive eating and meat consumption addiction.  Alternatively, Keep the population and just eat healthier.  Much easier sell in my book.

Offline Ron Obvious

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Episode #663
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2018, 07:28:28 PM »
So you would have us reduce the population 50+%, just so we can lower the greenhouse gases from food production and continue excessive eating and meat consumption addiction.  Alternatively, Keep the population and just eat healthier.  Much easier sell in my book.

If you don't curb population growth you've solved exactly nothing. Only deferred the inevitable at best and severely deteriorated quality of life besides.  Because it isn't just agricultural lands we're talking about.  There's loss of habitat, overfishing of the oceans, and mineral resource depletion to name just a few.  A significant portion of the world's population today lives on 1 or 2 dollars a day. Raising their standard of living to even the poorest people in the west such as, say Appalachia, would so strain our resources that we'd require something like 4 to 8 earths to provide the resources. 

Since we'll have to curb our population growth at some point in any case, I'd rather do it as soon as possible while we still have some nature, wildlife, and quality of life left.

 

personate-rain