Less meat, less heat -- fewer steaks may save planet

[lligrd]

Source: Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Eating too much red meat is not only bad for your health -- it is also bad for the planet, according to scientists.

Worldwide, agricultural activity accounts for about a fifth of total greenhouse-gas emissions and livestock production has a particularly big impact because of the large amount of methane emitted from belching cattle.

Tony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra and John Powles of the University of Cambridge, writing in the Lancet journal, said worldwide average meat consumption could be realistically reduced by 10 percent.

This would help in the battle against global warming and also reduce health risks associated with excessive consumption of red meat, they said.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070913/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_climate_meat;_ylt=AvBneUDj6MaCfrGhVkqpy0Os0NUE

[Mythsaje]

1. I can't tolerate steak anymore anyway...

It plugs me up for DAYS. Not worth it. Doesn't even sound appetizing anymore.

[OneBlueSky]

2. I gave up beef some time ago . . . it's for younger digestive tracts . . .

I'm working on pork, though I still have a weakness for the occasional BLT -- particularly when fresh tomatoes are available . . . my meat diet now consists primarily of chicken, turkey, and fish . . . I'm gettin' there . . .

[Norrin Radd]

5. Try the fake bacon (facon) from Morningstar Farms.

Cooks crisp in two minutes in the microwave, and is a convincing fake.

[Honeycombe8]

155. Me, too! Gave it (and all meat except poultry) up YEARS ago...don't miss it a bit.

But I didn't give it up for health reasons. I thought, actually, that beef was good for you, as long as you stuck to lean cuts. I gave up beef and pork for ethical reasons. NOW I find out it is also good for the earth????!!!!

Schwing! :bounce:

[leftchick]

3. it is alsothe forest destruction to feed the meat

whether it be chickens, pigs or cows. Go Veg!


http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/getinvolved/green-guide/green-lifestyle/go-vegetarian



Chances are that as someone who cares about the environment, you are always searching for things you can do to help protect it. But did you know that you can help protect the environment by simply making some changes to your diet? Concerned individuals can lower their impact on the planet by cutting down on the animal products they eat each week. Not everyone realizes the impact that raising animals for food has on the environment.
In the United States, more than one third of all fossil fuel and raw material consumption is used to raise livestock.

* It can take up to 15 times as much water to produce animal protein as it does to produce protein from plants. According to author John Robbins in his book The Food Revolution, you could save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you could by not showering for an entire year.

* Animal agriculture contributes significantly to global warming by producing more than 100 million tons of methane annually.

* Livestock operations generate roughly 130 times as much bodily waste as the entire human population of the United States, which makes its way into the environment without going through the sewage treatment systems found in our cities and towns. This untreated waste pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined.

* It takes up to 10 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat. In the US, we feed more than 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow to farmed animals, only a fraction of which is actually converted into the meat that people eat. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people — more than the entire human population on Earth.

* More than 260 million acres of US forests have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. In the Amazon, more than 2.9 million acres of rainforest were destroyed in the 2004-2005 growing season to raise crops that were used to feed animals in factory farms. Up to 220 square feet of rainforest are sacrificed to produce just one pound of hamburger.

[Auggie]

13. Besides livestock pollution there's also the pollution from fertilzers and farm machinery

It's a dirty business.

[Hideboh]

111. Who cares about rainforests? seriously

We need more meat.

[yewberry]

112. We have a neat little sarcasm tag.

Did you miss it, or do you really believe that devoting more resources and creating more CH4, CO2, and NH3 so that we can feed our cheap burger habit is a good idea?

[anniebelle]

4. Maybe it'll even save some of the tubbies of this planet.

Fortunately, in all my 62 years, I've never had the desire to eat meat so it's no big deal for my family. But I do know that all our friends who are red meat eaters -- and I'm talking Big Mac's for lunch, steak and potatoes for dinner every day of their lives -- all struggle with their waistlines, high blood pressure, cholesterol, you name it. The main problems I have with meat eaters is, for the most part, their diets are atrocious -- no fruit, very few vegetables and lots and lots of FAT.

[deacon]

6. Carne Asada produces plenty of gas. n/t

[trusty elf]

7. Why bother? Jay-zus is comin' soon anyway, right?

[MadHound]

8. A quandry here

If we're so desperate to return to organic farming practices to feed our country and the world, then by all means, we need cattle and other such animals for their part in the crop cycle. It is an age old practice to rotate three or four different crops through a field, followed by letting it be grazed, and manured, for a year by cattle, sheep, horses. It revitalizes the soil, fertilizing it. Take this away and we would have to rely on chemicals, a deathly cycle that cannot be sustained.

Sorry, but I find this argument to be counter productive, and frankly rather than focusing on cattle and such, we should focus on the other eighty percent of the problem, the greenhouse gases that mankind creates via auto and energy pollution. What good is it to be a vegetarian in a world where we haven't cut down on auto or energy emissions. Sure, that methane is gone, but we'll all still be dying from carbon monoxide and other such poisoning.

[yewberry]

35. It's not really a quandary.

There are an estimated 1.3 billion (with a b) head of cattle worldwide. If average worldwide meat consumption dropped by ten percent, there wouldn't be shortage of manure.

[radfringe]

70. here's the REAL quandry

according to some knucklehead in congress - global warming is caused by cow farts

so if we don't kill the cows for the steaks, then we will have more cows farting and heating up the globe

[Bjorn Against]

80. If we don't eat as much meat there will be less meat production, meaning less cows

While the right-wing tries to make the cow fart issue into a joke, it really is not a joke. Cow farts really do release a great deal of methane into the air which accelerates global warming. If people ate less meat there would be less cows, as raising cattle costs money and if there are less people buying the meat farmers are going to raise fewer cattle.

[radfringe]

89. less meat eating means more veggies which translates

to more farming and less forests

[Bjorn Against]

90. Wrong.

Rememeber you have to feed cattle too, and it takes A LOT of farmland to grow all the grains that are needed to feed cattle. They eat more than humans do, and you get far fewer calories out of them than you put into them. It takes far more land to raise meat and all the grain it takes to feed the animals which produce that meat than it does to raise vegetables for human consumption.

[ehrnst]

128. Cattle ranching causes much more deforestation than farming.

[Exultant Democracy]

165. I hope you left off your sarcasm tag, cause that is one of the dumbest things

I have ever seen posted here.

[mcg]

97. A host on WBJC 91.5FM was making that 'joke' this morning.

I think the host was Mark Malinowski, a web page about him:
http://www.wbjc.com/user/7

WBJC is mainly classical radio station, I tune into it to listen
to classical music, not bullshit commentary. This really pissed
me off.

First he talked about the study in a mocking tone of voice then said
something like "I would think if people ate MORE red meat that would
REDUCE global warming.".

As if no more cows will be born. Oh yes, if everyone suddenly ate
much more red meat cows would go extinct.

As you pointed out, this is idiotic. It's like saying that if people
ate more bagels, there would be fewer bagels. No, of course not,
the number of bagels - or any other product - being produced is
driven by demand. More demand for a product requires a greater inventory
of the product.

It's actually rather strange to refer to cows as products, considering
they are living sentient creatures like us.

[Honeycombe8]

156. True. BUT cow gas is now being used to produce energy, I read!

I read an article that says the cow gas can be harnessed as energy, and that in fact, one factory does that. It has a stable of cows....those cows produce enough energy to keep the factory running! Amazing!

I also read that Africa once had lots of trees....the introduction of cows had a lot to do with the deforestation of it, and big swatches thus turning into desert.

[defendandprotect]

107. Manure is not fertilizer --

Nothing should detract from the main cause of Global Warming -- the burning of fossil fuels --

However, our overall pollution of the planet is also no small problem --

understanding the connections between animal-exploitation and destruction of our own health and the health of the planet is necessary to a full awakening.

[MadHound]

159. You obviously aren't a farmer

Manure is indeed a fertilizer, one of the best ones going quite frankly. Kind of amazing how nature runs in those cycles, eh?

I agree with you, we should stop animal exploitation, which is one reason that I'm helping the organic, small farm movement. But as part of that movement comes the fact that we have to return to the old fashioned notion of crop rotation, which means one season of turning a field over to pasture and letting it be manured by cattle, sheep, etc. If you don't do that, then you are not going to have very fertile fields and the yield will continue to decrease, year in, year out. That is they way nature and organic farming works:shrug:

[ehrnst]

126. Actually we need far, far fewer cattle than we do now...

to go back to the old agararian methods....EVEN IF large scar farms would just agree to stop using massive machinery and all the profits associated with modern farming.

And why does trying to reduce the demand for beef and dairy take away from the effort to reduce the use of fossil fuels????

[MadHound]

161. If we succeed in returning to organic, small farming methods of farming

We will need far fewer cattle than we do now. But frankly, given the utter sterility of our soil, we need all the fertilizer, ie manure, that we can get in order to revitalize it. Decades of chemical use on our soil has rendered it unable to grow anything without adding more chemicals, a very vicious cycle. Thus the soil needs to be rebuilt, which in many cases could take a couple of decades. Which means we still need lots of cattle and lots of manure.

Once we have revitalized our soil, yes, we can cut back on cattle and other domestic animals if we wish, but there will always be a need for them. It is the way that nature's cycles work.

[Eurobabe]

9. Tell you what, I'll give up my steak, when you give up your SUV

How's that for a deal?

Food police! Jayzuz!!!

[Umbram]

11. Poor thing.

All of us Hummer driving vegetarians will stop judging you so you don't have to get defensive.

[Eurobabe]

56. I have macrobiotic and vegan friends

I'm not defensive, just realistic.

It's your choice to not eat meat, it's my choice to eat organic meat when I do. Let's just get along! :hi:

[feloneous cat]

Whoa!

Don't you drag MY ass into your argument!

Feloneous "I don't eat meat" Cat

[Eurobabe]

58. Dude!!

:hi:

[feloneous cat]

59. I was just on the phone with you...

This is just... weird...

As for the whole "farting cows", etc. Basically, this boils down to a rehash of Ronald Reagan's "trees cause pollution".

All falls in the same category as "The Domino Theory (of Communism and Democracy)", "Iran is a Threat", and "China is our Friend" -- all without merit or substantial fact.

But what do I know? I'm a Buddhist Socialist Vegetarian Texan....

Feloneous

P.S. I drive a diesel truck, but then I ALSO live on a ranch and actually have things in the bed!

[Chulanowa]

65. It's a combination of factors

First off, the massive destruction of forests to create pasture and cropland. As we all know, trees are the #1 respirators outside of the oceans. They also store massive amounts of carbon. when they are torn down, they are usually burned. Now we have not only destroyed a chunk of the great planetary lung, but we have also returned all that carbon to the atmosphere, increasing the workload of what's left.

We then replace the forest land with grasses - grains, mostly. Grass is a terrible respirator, especially when replacing trees. They also demand a huge amount of nutrients, especially for our "big yield" strains. Forest soil can only handle one or two intensive plantings, we we cram that dirt full of fake nutrients from petrochemical processing - which of course has its own impact on the condition of our atmosphere.

That done, we cram huge herds of cattle on what land is left, far more than a normal pasture could support. We accomplish this by feeding them those grains - silage. Cattle do not normally eat grain, they eat grass. But we give them this protein and carb-rich diet (make sure to add plenty of bone meal!) in order to make them big and meaty. Unfortunately, a cow's gut is made to ferment its food, and then cough it up as cud. This doesn't happen with silage. It ferments, sure, all those heavy sugars and starches breaking down into alcohols and carbon dioxide gas.

Which the cows belch out

So to recap. We have carved away a chunk of the planet's lung, returning the carbon it contained to the atmosphere, then replaced it with plant life that cannot even come close to absorbing half as much carbon. In order to force this plant life to live, we pour chemicals created by the refining of petroleum into the soil, the process of creating which creates any number of noxious gasses. When this grain is ripe, we then feed it to a species of animal that does not eat grain and suffers severe indigestion from eating it, resulting in the world's cattle yards being one giant brewery, with all the methane and CO2 one would expect.

So, no, it's not just farting cows. It's all the stuff that leads up to the cows needing to fart in the first place.

[asthmaticeog]

117. Please make this post an OP so I can recommend it.

:thumbsup:

[yewberry]

36. Food police?

They're scientists publishing in the Lancet. Should they STFU just because some people don't want to hear what they have to say? If they called for a ten percent reduction of, say, potatoes, would they still be "food police?"

[feloneous cat]

61. So?

Writing in the Lancet doesn't make you a god. Nor are they talking about a breakthrough in cancer.

The article says "This would help in the battle against global warming and also reduce health risks associated with excessive consumption of red meat, they said."

Basically this is another bullshit story that doesn't say anything. BFD. And changing to an alternative fuel source would cut the use of petroleum. We could go on all day with "hypotheticals".

The problem is that it solves nothing. Doesn't matter if it is published in the Lancet or Mad Magazine.

News now seems about talking "what ifs" not "what is".

Feloneous

[yewberry]

71. Beg your pardon?

The post I responded to dismissed the article as "food police" and I pointed out that the article is by actual scientists and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Suggesting that global food consumption patterns may have some kind of effect in the face of 40% population growth is hardly bullshit.

The problem isn't that the study solves nothing; it's that it proposes alterations that people don't like and are more likely to ignore.

[Eurobabe]

74. Sorry doesn't impress me, Lancet OR peer-reviewed

journal. :shrug:

George W.has many of 'those' already, and where has it gotten us?

I think we'd be smarter to concentrate on alternative forms of energy rather than worrying about belching and farting cows.

[Bjorn Against]

81. Do you honestly think the Bush agenda has been peer-reviewed?

Sorry, but the Bush administration hates science for a reason, because all the peer-reviewed studies have shown how destructive Bush policies are.

I am sorry to say but the Lancet is far more credible than your personal opinion.

[flvegan]

37. That was precious.

*pinches cheeks*

[LanternWaste]

64. Scientific observations from a peer-reviewed journal...

Scientific observations from a peer-reviewed journal making suggestions on how to better protect the planet is the equal of the 'Food Police'?

Does that mean when JAMA finally came out and wrote that smoking did indeed cause cancer some years back, they then became the 'Lung Nazi's'?

[Susang]

122. Unfortunately, a lot of people think that

Ever visit any "smoker's rights" websites? :eyes:

[LanternWaste]

123. I imagine it's a like a very relaxed Klan meeting...

I'd be afraid to visit a smokers' right site-- I imagine it's a like a very relaxed Klan meeting with a lot of coughing...

[customerserviceguy]

88. Agreed

People who tell other people how they MUST live are annoying whether they come from the left or the right. Leave my freakin' steak alone, dammit.

[mcg]

98. I drive a Prius. There are no 'food police' here.

You sure are getting defensive.

[qanda]

10. Every time I eat beef I have a psoriasis flare up

I had given it up completely but it really does taste good so I only have it every now and then.

[riona]

17. That's one that never occurred to me

The only flare up reasons I've confirmed are stress, and an occasional hair product. If it's not one of those two, I'm stumped.

[cobalt1999]

12. Oh god, not this crock of shit again.

Every week someone posts the same thing. This is hardly "Breaking News", nor is it even accurate.

[MH1]

14. Which assertion is not accurate? n/t

[cobalt1999]

16. The "logic" leap they took.

Do cattle produce methane by farting and belching? Yes.

However, so did the tens of millions of Buffalo that used to roam the US, so do the millions of wildebeests in Africa, so do all large herbivores.

They've proven that large herbivores produce methane and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Now, here the important part scientifically. The planet has always had hundreds of millions of large herbivores. Scientifically they need to show what has changed, but they don't. Is it feeding cattle corn instead of grasses that makes it worse? Is it other modern farming practices? Once they prove that, then you go after the agent that caused the change. However, all they did was make the leap to "giving up eating meat".

I hate bad science & logic. However, it'll be quoted over and over by every evangelical vegetarian without critical thought from now on.

[MH1]

27. It takes more resources to create the same amount of protein

from animal sources as compared to vegetable sources. By a factor of 3 or more, up to 16 or so, depending on whose numbers you use.

This is a "truism" known to vegetarians for a long time so authors probably don't feel they need to cite a source in every argument.

It is reasonable to believe that requiring more resources to create the same amount of protein, would create more waste, including more pollution. (If you have to grow three times as many soybeans, think of the tractor fuel and fertilizer alone.)

If I can find a link to a credible primer online, I will post it. But you could also go to the library and pick up Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet.

[cobalt1999]

30. Too simplistic

It's not the resource to create the same amount of protein (which isn't accurate either...it should be calculated in calories not protein), it's what is the impact on the environment.

Reposting from below...

For example, lets look at West Texas. You could grow crops there but it would require massive irrigation and lots of fertilizers, or you can raise cattle feeding off the grasses that naturally grow there.

In environments that evolved to be grass plains, grass raised cattle is the least environmental harmful choice. Vast sections of North America were grazed by Buffalo and those buffalo consumed by Indians for thousands of years.

Eating meat is not inherently environmental harmful. Factory farming of cattle and growing crops not suitable for the natural environment are.

[MH1]

33. Why calories? Most people consume TOO MANY calories.

Protein was chosen as the limiting factor. If you are getting the needed protein, you will almost definitely be getting the needed calories, won't you?

[cobalt1999]

46. I look at calories because that is the way the UN and

most agencies calculate diet requirements. I don't have any figures based on protein counts.

[feloneous cat]

62. That is simplistic...

AND ignores the inherent amount of waste created by live stock (which are INEFFICIENT ways of converting a low calorie food stock into a high calorie food stock).

You want to feed the planet? Beans (legumes) and rice. You're done. Boring, but it works.

Feloneous

[TX-RAT]

69. Beans (legumes) and rice. You're done. Boring, but it works.

Well if your intent is just to feed, and the plowing and destroying of every square inch of grass lands, tree's, native growth, and all the wildlife that depends on it is not a concern, then go for it. I personally see that as far more damaging to the environment, but to each his own.

[feloneous cat]

131. Huh?!?!

It requires A MINIMUM of 1 acre per head of cattle.

So I guess I don't understand your point. You think that it would take MORE land to feed using beans and rice?

How?

Feloneous

[TX-RAT]

67. lets look at West Texas.

I agree, lets look at it, because nobody else does are wants to. I've been raising cattle here in West TX, getting close to 30 years, and i can say with all honesty it's one of the least environmentally damaging industries in the area. These cattle are open range with no or very limited supplemental feeding. We don't hit them with hormones or any growth enhancing drugs, they might get dusted for pink eye or treated for screw worms, but thats about it. Most of my cattle are picked up by local processors to be sold locally, with very few actually making it to auction or the larger feed lots, like those in the panhandle. The studies, like the one in the op, only look at the smaller and more damaging part of the industry the Factory farming or feed lots. My circumstance are nothing new, in fact their very old, most cattle are raised on ranches most their life, with only the last 3 to 4 months of their life spent in feed lots.

I get a chuckle every time i read one of these uniformed bias reports.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. A quick look at figures suggests there are many more large herbivores now

1.53 billion cattle, and 1.75 billion sheep and goats in 2001 - source: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update6.htm (Brazil alone has 200 million cattle in 2004 - http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200512/07/eng20051207_226316.html )

sixty million bison in North America in 1492 - source: http://www.nps.gov/archive/wica/bison.htm

And the American bison herds are the main wild ones that have been cut. So the basic case is that there are more large herbivores than there used to be.

[cobalt1999]

32. So we've replaced...

60 million bison with 97 million cows. Taking the figure from www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/newsrelease/2006/020206/06livstk.htm

Since a full grown bison weighs almost 2000 lbs and a full grown cow weighs around 1000 lbs. Pound for pound, we basically have a wash here in North America.

Raising cattle in environments that evolved growing grasses and being grazed by large herbivores is the least environmentally harmful production of food.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. You appear to have a North American-centric viewpoint

and are successfully ignoring the hundreds of millions of extra cattle elsewhere in the world.

[cobalt1999]

45. True, however...

I don't know the stats on other countries, and I don't know the number of large herbivores that were displaced by human activity. In Africa wildebeest and gnu numbers were dramatically reduced with European colonization. They are dropping dramatically still.

However, it doesn't matter what numbers you and I trade here. What matters is where is the science? Where is the logic to go from many large herbivores (which have always been here) to "not eating meat".

What are the baseline numbers for the planet? What amount of methane did they produce in a pre-modern world? How does that differ from todays production? IF it differs dramatically what is the root cause? Different diets? More large herbivores?

See, you are jumping to all the way to the end. Good science is very methodical.

THEN, after all that, if the proposal is to reduce meat consumption, how does that stop forest destruction from timber, growing crops, population pressures?

Do you get my point yet? They went from one FACT: Large herbivores produce methane and made a HUGE leap to the end without a logical path.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. I don't think they have made a leap

Here is a similar question asked on the Bad Astronomy blog, and an answer in Scientific American:

> Does anyone know if there really are more ruminants on the planet
> today than there were before Buffalo Bill nearly exterminated the Bison
> and others wreaked a lesser carnage in Africa?
This is a subject that has been looked at before, by environmental scientists. Try the FAO's Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options - which is referenced in the Lancet article.

There was a letter to the editor in Scientific American (June 2007, don’t have a link to it) asking a similar question:

“In ‘Methane, Plants and Climate Change,’ by Frank Keppler and Thomas Roeckmann, two graphs compare sources of methane in the atmosphere during preindustrial times with those of today. Ruminants are listed as a major source of current emissions but are not included in the preindustrial chard. Did as many as 70 million bison really produce that much less methane than today’s cattle?”

“Keppler replies: Although wildlife certainly produced methane in preindustrial time, this output was just a minor fraction of the 233 million metric tons of yearly global methane emissions. According to estimates made by environmental scientist Susan Subak and her colleagues in a 1994 article for Chemosphere, the total production of methane by wild ruminants in that period was no more than 10 million metric tons a year - a figure that takes into account the North American bison population (which Subak estimates to have comprised 60 million animals) and the natural ruminants of Africa and other continents. An estimated 1.4 billion head of cattle populate the world today - far more ruminants than existed in preindustrial times. Furthermore, modern cattle are bred for productivity, which probably leads them to emit more methane than their wild relatives did. Estimates put their methane production at 115 million metric tons a year.”

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/11/solar-cooling/#comment-122415

[cobalt1999]

85. Interesting.

They are saying a modern cow produces 10x the methane of wild runimant, but then don't give a reason for that assumption beyond..."bred for productivity, which probably leads them to emit more methane". I would have thought they would have looked at a cows diet of unnatural corn/soybeans as a reason. I wonder how they came to that conclusion or the 10X number.

I may have to look up this 1994 study because the snippet is certainly interesting even though it doesn't seem to make sense. Thanks for posting.

[cobalt1999]

87. Have you seen the other studies by Keppler & Roeckmann?

Here is one showing 60 to 240 million metric tons of annual methane coming from PLANTS, mostly in the rainforests.

www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2006/pressRelease20060110/index.html

However, I have the same issue with this study. Since we've always had rainforests, it doesn't make sense to blame them and destroy them to reduce methane levels.

Let's go after the big deltas...human burning of fossil fuels.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. But the point is that one of the deltas is cattle farming

I don't know where you got "they say a modern cow produces 10x as much as a wild ruminant" - they don't quote the figure for how many total large wild ruminants they estimated, only the bison herd, but unless you're claiming it was on the order of a billion, then your 10x figure would make no sense - because they're saying 1.4 billion farmed animals are produced 11.5 times the wild figure.

The range for methane from living plants is wide - and they're not saying it's a delta, so they're not saying 'destroy the rainforests'. But meat production - which includes the greenhouse gas increases associated with land change and fossil fuel input to it as well as the enteric methane - is something we've changed - and may get changed further, if developing countries continue to want more beef in their diet.

[Kali]

53. thankyou - I get sick of this shit too.

let's not forget those evil termites either.

I need to compose a good response that covers the usual talking points and stor it in photobucket or something so I don't have to repeat myself so often. Maybe I will steal part of yours! (just kidding)

[Lilith Velkor]

57. That's been going on for at least 15 years

What's really ironic is how EVs pride themselves on wearing clothing made from petroleum.

[Bjorn Against]

84. Those buffalo were not born through artificial insemination like many cows are

The problem is that by having a far greater number of cows than nature ever intended there to be it upsets the Earth's natural balance in a way those other herbivores you talk about did not.

The Lancet is good science, I would like to see where you got your "science" from but my guess is it has not gone through the level of peer review the Lancet authors had to endure.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. I'll agree that this isn't necessarily breaking news...

But the environmental impact of factory farming and clear-cutting in third world nations has been known for decades. Fact is it takes about ten pounds of grain protein to create one pound of animal protein (more or less, depending on the animal). A vegetarian diet is by far healthier for the planet (and your arteries) than one laden with meat. I'm not a vegetarian, and I'm pretty much impervious to any pro-vegetarian arguement based on "moral" grounds, but on the basis of the environment and health issues, I gotta hand it to them.

[cobalt1999]

18. Then the logical argument should be giving up factory farming and...

protecting the forests. It's bad logic combined with the evangelical nature of some vegetarians that keeps this "news" popping up again and again.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. How is that bad logic?

If you've ever lived downwind from a factory farm, believe me you'd be all for giving it up. And I'm certainly in favor of protecting both tropical rain forests and any other green space. I don't deny that the PETA crowd goes (way) over the top with their rhetoric and some of their activities, but I'm sympathetic with them on a certain level.

[cobalt1999]

25. I am all for giving up Factory Farms. I must not have been clear in my post.

It is bad logic to say giving up Factory Farming and protecting forests is the same thing as giving up eating meat.

We need to protect our remaining forests. Giving up meat doesn't mean the forests won't cut down for timber or to grow crops. Ending factory farming should be a goal as they are terribly impactful on the environment. However, you can get rid of factory farming and still have grass fed cattle.

The two are not the same.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. Absolutely...

One of my goals is to wean myself from all store-bought meat. Living in Wisconsin, we've got plenty of farmers who have grass-fed, hormone-free livestock and sell direct to the public.

[OnionPatch]

95. Same here.

Our goal was to cut way back. We changed from eating it several times a week to eating it about once a week. When we do eat it, it's grass raised and local. We don't really miss the extra beef meals that much and appreciate it all the more when we have it. With a lot less guilt. Oh, and the taste is so much better than factory farmed meat, anyway.

[Snarkturian Clone]

19. The best part about these threads

are all the people that show up and say "well I don't eat red meat so there!" as if we're all reading it and saying to ourselves "well that right there must be a real liberal!"

[Mountainman]

47. That could be said about a lot of threads lately no matter what the main topic.

Be it SUV's or smoking or guns or what have you. Now I gave up meat 15 years ago and that is not what makes me a liberal or even contributes to it. I just know better than to believe in conservative dogma.

[Snarkturian Clone]

49. I missed it.

I missed the announcement where a bunch of conservatives went up to a podium and said "Eat meat or jesus will kick your ass!"

[Mountainman]

51. I'm not tying conservative dogma to this thread. Only that since I disagree with it

I am a liberal. Sorry to have said it.

[Snarkturian Clone]

54. fair enough nt

[yewberry]

44. It's a new study, so it's LBN.

And I disagree with your assertions of inaccuracy. (Shocking, I know.)

There are 1.3 billion head of cattle worldwide. The suggestion of a ten percent reduction in beef consumption by 2050 will only stabilize industry emissions given projected population growth. Hardly some kind of propaganda campaign (those crazy epidemiologists and their wacky ideas!)--or do you think that the projected 40% increase in population by 2050 won't require new strategies for feeding the world?

[cobalt1999]

52. I'm shocked!

LOL...just kidding. :)

I'm not arguing against being a vegetarian, I'm just looking for the science behind the study posted (I hate bad science).

If the topic is global warming and it's causes, then we need to look at the DELTA between methane production historically and today. A study that looks only at todays number without comparison and concludes "that's a major cause of global warming", isn't very scientific. I think we'd have to agree on that point regardless of how we feel about eating meat.

[yewberry]

73. No, I really don't agree.

There are many reasons for the rising and slowing patterns of CH4 in the atmosphere. The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled in the past 200 years. Coal use, landfills, wetlands--all contribute. Seeking one specific agent of change doesn't really make sense.

However, we do know that our 1.3 billion head of cattle produce a significant portion of the methane in our atmosphere, and it's not really much of a leap to suggest that a reduction in cattle will result in a reduction of CH4.

[cobalt1999]

82. Okay so you're biased against large herbivores.

"...it's not really much of a leap to suggest that a reduction in cattle..." Yes, it is a LEAP, thank you for proving my point. Science doesn't use leaps of faith, it requires a strict methodology.

Your logic could just as easily be applied to "Let's shoot all the wildebeests in Africa", that will reduce CH4. Nevermind, it's not the large herbivores that caused Global Warming. THAT is why you look for the agents of change.

However, I get the feeling you have an agenda vs. wanting to talk about the merits of a "scientific" study.

[yewberry]

92. What a completely baffling response.

No, I'm not biased against large herbivores.

No, it's not a leap to say that we have 1.3-1.5 billion head of cattle worldwide (NOT wildebeests or bison but domestic cattle) and that each one produces between 100 and 500 l of methane per day. Wild animals are estimated to produce about 5% of total animal emissions. It's simple math to say that a reduction in the number of cattle will lead to a reduction in methane output.

Yes, methane output of domesticated cattle is significantly higher (2-3x) in developed nations. It varies greatly depending on the kind of cattle we're talking about and the kind of feed that is used. There are many studies and experiments addressing the reduction of methane released by cattle.

I honestly have no idea what you believe is lacking in our understanding of methane emissions that makes you see a "leap of faith" here.


But go ahead and look for someone to travel into the past and measure the output of methane by native bison in this country. That way, you can keep claiming that every study about the anthropogenic output of methane is "unscientific."

[defendandprotect]

109. Speaking of "shit" . . .. the government permits 17% fecal matter on animal carcasses --

Ever watch any of the TV cooks when they open a package of "meat" --
They never wash it --

I think -- other than plain stupidity -- it might be because the animal-exploitation industry doesn't want anyone to think that "meat" isn't clean.

On the other hand, how do you wash ground chuck?

But -- the percentage may be even worse now under Bushco?

[Kali]

144. speaking of shit

care to prove that 17% number. NOT.

Did you pull that out of your ass or what?

[Javaman]

20. I can't remember the last time I had steak.

but I couldn't tell that to moron* because according to him the economy is fucking doing gangbusters!

I'm doing my part to save the earth by being poor.

[electron_blue]

21. Back in grad school I used to say I was a financial vegetarian...

meaning that the only reason I didn't eat meat is that I couldn't afford it. Pasta, beans, rice and veggies were so much cheaper than meat.

[Javaman]

22. I like that. lol nt

[NotGivingUp]

24. Pure hogwash. n/t

[frogcycle]

26. its not just the farts

converting the energy in soybeans and corn into meat is highly inefficient. If we didn't waste so much agricultural product (and petroleum product) converting it to hooves, horns, and methane, we'd have plenty for both food and biofuel

[cobalt1999]

29. Actually, it should be producing food in the least environmentally harmful way possible.

For example, lets look at West Texas. You could grow crops there but it would require massive irrigation and lots of fertilizers, or you can raise cattle feeding off the grasses that naturally grow there.

In environments that evolved to be grass plains, grass raised cattle is the least environmental harmful choice. Vast sections of North America were grazed by Buffalo and those buffalo consumed by Indians for thousands of years.

Eating meat is not inherently environmental harmful. Factory farming of cattle and growing crops not suitable for the natural environment are.

[frogcycle]

40. agreed, but

it remains the case that the most efficient conversion of solar energy to human energy is via humans eating plant material, not via animals eating plant material and humans eating animals

That does not have to mean all humans should be vegetarians, but it most definitely means that the overall system efficiency is improved if you cut out the middlecows, and it leaves more available biomass to convert into energy for machines humans use, and heating/cooling. We modern humans use a lot more energy per capita than the Native Americans did when subsisting largely on bison, so your analogy is a bit weak.

[cobalt1999]

48. I can agree if you add the caveat, DEPENDING on the location and plants grown.

In some locations, a large herbivore IS the most efficient and environmentally friendly conversion.

In some locations, a plant is, however, it better be a plant that doesn't require intensive irrigation and fertilizers to grow in that location. If it does, then it is not very efficient and may even be more harmful than meat.

[frogcycle]

78. well, yeah, i considered that a given

irrigating the desert to grow food is absurd - unless the energy spent irrigating is less than would be the energy to truck stuff in

Using enormous amounts of herbicides and fertilizers to grow corn for biofuel is absurd. Likewise for cattle.

Switchgrass, on the other hand, will grow pretty much across the continent, drought tolerant, hardy, out-compete the weeds, and is a native prairie perenniel. We need to stop all subsidies to agribusiness for producing ethanol from corn and start focusing on what works best. I'm not sure of switchgrass's applicability to cattle grazing - it is a tallgrass and might not do well if kept close cropped. But clearly an intelligent approach to land use could be taken if we could eliminate all teh big business biases and personal agendas.

It's all about a "systems" approach and the elimination of suboptimization (read: local personal agendas). The argument over meat fits into this picture, and there are points to be made, but cherry-picking data to drive a personal agenda and/or zealous bias does us no good.

[TexasBushwhacker]

41. Exactly!

It is the factory farming/feedlot model that's the problem. Grazing livestock on land that would be otherwise be fallow is a good use of resources.

That being said, I like what Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivores Dilemma" said:

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

To expand on his definition of "food":

1) Don't eat food with more than five ingredients, or with ingredients you can't pronounce, or that contain high-fructose corn syrup (which serves as a 'marker' indicating that the food is highly processed).

2) Eat only food that you have cooked, or could cook.

3) Eat only food that your great, great grandmother would recognize as food.

[ohio2007]

28. the price of steak will drop

good ;)

[Gregorian]

34. This just in- fewer babies just might bring the population down.

But that is the logical backdrop behind all of this that no one can talk about. But until we do talk about it, all of the rest of this silliness is just a band-aid. A much needed band-aid that shouldn't be needed. Because with this population, it doesn't just stop at meat and heat and suv's. It's everything.

But I think it's too late now. The houses are built. The forests have been cut. The wars are raging.

Here's the big problem- to see this is to be in pain. And that is why nobody wants to see the real problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. They do acknowledge that in the article

The last of its Key Messages:

Global population growth is continuing, although slowing. The eventual peak size is not predetermined: it can be lowered by education, leadership, and wider contraceptive availability. Slower population growth will help achieve the Millennium Development Goals and will limit population size, climate change, and the environmental effects of food production.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607612562/fulltext

(requires registration)

[Gregorian]

86. Amazing.

One of the few mentions of the single most important subject we face.

Thanks for sharing that with me.

[pipoman]

39. Having raised cattle

it is apparent to me that most of those who make these silly arguments haven't a clue what meat production is all about.

Most of the family farm type meat production relies on feeding cattle (and other production livestock) minimal amounts of feed which can be sold or used for other purposes. In corn production huge amounts of nutritional matter is wasted if livestock is not raised. The stocks contain huge amounts of sugars and carbs which are not edible. In winter wheat production wheat grass is extremely nutritious for livestock. Cattle are ranged on winter wheat fields for 2-3 months prior to the harvest of the wheat crop. This allows for fertilizing the wheat ground for the next farm cycle, it keeps the wheat from maturing too soon and makes the plant stronger. Much of he rural landscape is unusable for crop production and is only suitable for livestock production or raising grasses which are harvested for winter feed. It is completely impossible to raise livestock and feed them a diet of strictly grain, the cost per pound of meat would exceed the value of the feed. These farmers are not idiots. They are making full use of their farm land by diverse farming practices.

Modern US factory farms while are a bigger problem IMO, are not the environmental disaster portrayed by PETA. Their sewage systems are state of the art. The sewage is processed and used for fertilizer production for crops and the water is purified to the same standards as human waste treatment. Again these operators are not idiots and they produce meat for the least amount of money possible.

The bottom line is that much of the feed used for meat production is from land not suitable for crop production or byproducts of crop production which would otherwise go to waste.

The farm economy and livestock/crop production is very measured and deliberate. Profit and loss balances on pennies per pound/bushel.

Considering 200 pounds of meat annually per person in 2005 in the US according to the USDA (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Consumption/), 300 million people in the US = around 60 billion pounds of meat annually. This doe not include dairy and eggs. The replacement with vegetarian diet would not only be cost prohibitive and impossible, it would result in millions of hungry people around the world IMO.

Farts and belching...give me a break...:crazy:

[Mountainman]

50. I live in cattle country, had to chase a bull and his cows off my property last night.

I think that much of what you say is not knowable by the large majority of people. They have their beliefs and you will not change them. The cattle in my neighborhood are range fed as we live in a free range area. Nothing else can be grown here as a crop since the ground is mostly granite rock. The cattle feed on the wild grass that is grown and like this year the ranchers have to buy and truck in feed, since the rain was sparse.

The ranchers raise cattle or don't based on the return they expect to get, also the tax write offs. There would have to be a whole sale end to red meat consumption for that to ever change and I doubt that it will happen.

So to my way of looking at it, this whole discussion serves only to further pit people against each other.

[feloneous cat]

66. This post is rather self-serving....

"In corn production huge amounts of nutritional matter is wasted if livestock is not raised."

Which would be true - if it were. You know as well as I do that a lot of corn is grown PURELY, PURELY for cattle and nothing else. So don't go around chatting like we're all dumb city folk - some of us are ranchers too.

As for fertilizer - most, if not all, that raise any crops here (Texas) use petrochemical based products as cattle, horse, etc. manure is far too hot. So don't talk like what is standard practice in your area is standard practice elsewhere.

As for the stats on meat - you are assuming that we NEED 200 lbs of meat per person to live. This is patently untrue (and history even provides a few lessons in that area). The South regularly ate a staple of beans and rice (it was one of my favorites as a child - beans, rice, and corn bread). Add some veggies and you are all set. So much for the "cost prohibitive" and "impossible" statements.

The whole point of meat production is it takes a LOT of low-calorie foodstuffs and turns it into higher calorie foodstuffs (meat). HOWEVER, it inefficient at best, requires a lot of land (and the worse the land is the more you need) AND water (another very precious commodity).

Sure, we can all believe that factory farms are these nice, well run sterile units that pump in crappy vegetable protein and turn out great steaks - but that would be a lie. True, the operators aren't idiots, but they believe YOU are. They do as little as it takes and feed the animals the cheapest thing possible (at one time using animal carcasses). Ranches (not just factory farms) are the epitome of "do as little as possible for as cheap as possible".

I could get into the whole "mad cow" problem and why the solution is such B.S. (let's just say the math is rubbish).

Yes, despite pipoman's beliefs, the country COULD go vegetarian. Nor would be be cost prohibitive (a lot of the world eats very little meat).

But that would be plain UnAmerican...

[mcg]

100. Meat production takes far more resources.

Soy You Want to Be a Vegetarian?
On soy vs. meat
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2005/10/12/meat/

I'll go over some numbers from the Union of Concerned Scientists' Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices (mwah!) and an article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which surveyed European life-cycle studies of food production.

The journal picked soy studies for a comparison, lucky for you. Meat production took more land (6 to 17 times as much), water (4.4 to 26 times), fossil fuels (6 to 20 times), and biocides (a lumped-together category of pesticides and chemicals used in processing -- 6 times as much). In fact, meat lost in every category.

[pipoman]

102. Not self serving at all as I am not a cattle rancher

nor does my income depend in any way on livestock production.

I have lived among farmers and ranchers my whole life. I usually have a steer or 2 on the hoof for personal/family consumption. Buying feed for cattle is cost prohibitive, most cattle ranchers produce their own feed grasses and grains. Corn is currently around $3.50+/- per/bushel, milo is around $3.25+/-. Beef on the hoof markets around $1 per pound. Now how much $3+ bushel grain is that cattle rancher going to feed these feeder cattle over the 3 years it takes to mature that steer before they go out of business? Answer? A lot less than the anti-meat activists would have you think. My beef costs about 1 1/2 times what I would pay if I went to the grocery store and bought it (it is however 10 times better). The only way to raise cattle for profit is to use otherwise unusable land and vegetation for feed. For every pound of corn produced there is 1 1/4 pounds of corn foliage which contains as much sugar, carbs, and protein as a pound of corn. This goes to waste if not used as livestock feed. In most of the wheat belt if wheat is not grazed early maturity would result in damage from cold weather and high rainfall when the wheat is maturing. Grasses suited to the growing region allow for use of land otherwise unusable for dryland farming and irrigated farming in many areas would be impossible.

As for the stats on meat - you are assuming that we NEED 200 lbs of meat per person to live.

I am not assuming any such thing. As for NEED...we don't NEED to have electricity, 2 cars, 1500 sq/ft living space, 8 pairs of shoes, telephones, computers, blenders...need I go on? The point is that people DO consume that much meat in the US. If they are not eating meat they WILL be eating something. I really don't care what people choose to eat. If beans and rice suits you for every meal..knock yourself out. I personally like having my car, my computer, my lights, my home, and my beef. It is always the militant vegetarians and vegans who not only want to choose their own diet but want to choose mine too. Then proceed to tell me how my choice of food destroys the earth based on "science" originated by vegan and vegetarian groups.

The only way that vegetarianism reduces a carbon footprint is if the vegetarian raises the food themselves. From planting through distribution of vegetarian food to grocery stores I would guess the carbon production is similar to meat. If you have numbers (preferably by government agencies and not PETA etal) please direct me to them.

(a lot of the world eats very little meat).

True. A lot of the world eats grains raised right here in the US. Grain which would be dramatically reduced if Americans are filling a void left by the extraction of 60 billion pounds of meat from the food chain, much of that weight being produced from otherwise unusable ground and farm byproducts (corn and milo foliage, wheat grazing, etc.).

And the reason petro chemical based fertilizers are used to the extent they are is because natural (livestock waste) quantities does not meet the demand. I challenge you to find a large beef producer who does not process the waste and use it in place of petrochemical fertilizers. And I hate the factory farms, but they have become far greener over the last 20 years than most other industries. I buy as much food which is locally grown as possible, raise my own beef, chickens, and vegetables and 1-2 deer per year. The last grocery store meat I bought was 3 years ago, a Thanksgiving turkey.

[feloneous cat]

134. And yet your comments oddly do not match my reality...

And despite your protestations to the contrary, it takes little research to discover that "oh, ranchers DO feed corn"

http://ohioline.osu.edu/anr-fact/0011.html

Many people who raise cattle grow hay and corn (for the winter months). You are talking about prices on the market (which are 300% of actual cost - if they want to make a profit). It costs the rancher about $24 / acre to weed and feed. Out of that, if they are lucky, they will get 1 round bale (approx. 1.5 tons) of low protein hay. Much of that will go straight through the animal (that's the reality of herbivores). That same round bale, on open market this year, went for $70. So you can see how the post is INCREDIBLY misleading.

But you knew that.

As for the amount of protein needed, it is not a case of going without air conditioning, etc. It is that we do not NEED that much. It is, in fact, unhealthy. Frankly, I don't care what you eat. But when you argue that meat production is not as bad as everyone says, well, you either are working for Agri-Biz or are just plain ignorant. My neighbors all have cattle and, frankly, it's not all that its cracked up to be. I have horses and sheep (and hence know a thing or two about herbivores).

Again, I don't care what you eat. Never have, never did.

But when you start making silly statements food, the cattle industry, etc. well, frankly, I have to call you on them.

Guessing counts as zero.

I can TELL you that being a vegetarian reduces the carbon footprint. How? Because you are cutting out the middle man. How do you think those large bales of hay get cut? How do they get delivered? Are you even aware of the vast amount of hay the is ported from one part of the country to the other? That is the reality. Cattle have to eat during the winter. To do so requires some method of storage - and usually that is in the form of hay or grains.

Wasting Food

Oh, yeah, about your corn foliage that goes to waste.... the fewer cattle, the fewer folks that would grow corn. Hence, less waste.

A lot of the world DOESN'T eat U.S. grains

Australia ALONE exports about a third of what the U.S. exports. Canada exports about a third of what the U.S. exports. In fact, it is not case of the world DEPENDING on us, we have too much to begin with (which is why corn sugar is in just about everything - because it is cheap as dirt). It is cheap because we can't sell enough. The magic of economics.

Compost Happens

Here is the final part that is really lovely about vegetable matter. It composts nicely. What you call "waste" others call "tea" (www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/ airwaste/wm/recycle/Tea/tea1.htm).

The REAL truth

Ranchers feed their animals the cheapest feed possible. I know because I talk with them. It may be corn foliage one year, hay the next. Sometimes it is what I call "crap hay" which is just a nasty field with weeds that gets baled. And these are the animals that end up on peoples tables.

It would be all nice and purty if it were.

But it isn't.

[pipoman]

143. Just more vegetarian blow

Many people who raise cattle grow hay and corn (for the winter months). You are talking about prices on the market (which are 300% of actual cost - if they want to make a profit). It costs the rancher about $24 / acre to weed and feed. Out of that, if they are lucky, they will get 1 round bale (approx. 1.5 tons) of low protein hay. Much of that will go straight through the animal (that's the reality of herbivores). That same round bale, on open market this year, went for $70. So you can see how the post is INCREDIBLY misleading.

Many do grow hay and what corn they feed. Your link actually proves my point that the cost effectiveness of crop production must be weighed against the cost effectiveness of livestock production. If potential crop yields exceed the value of the production of livestock feed, the ground is used for crop production. If the crop production potential is poor because of soil quality or water availability the land is used for livestock production. The article talks about using this lower potential land for growing corn as a forage as the ear quality would likely not make crop corn production efficient use of the ground.

Hay and alfalfa are generally grown on ground not suitable for other crops due to lack of irrigation or poor soil quality. Smart ranchers choose the highest quality grasses suitable for their growing conditions. The point of the corn comment isn't wholesale on the corn, they are not going to feed cattle a bushel of corn that they can sell for $3.50 to gain a pound or two on a steer that they will sell for $1 or $2...that would be idiotic. Not to mention the amount of labor that goes into livestock production. Farming/ranching isn't a conspiracy to fatten Americans, it is like any other business...payment for investment and labor. If you are buying poor quality low protein bales for $70 it is because you are going around dissing the farmers and they see you coming.

I can TELL you that being a vegetarian reduces the carbon footprint. How? Because you are cutting out the middle man. How do you think those large bales of hay get cut? How do they get delivered? Are you even aware of the vast amount of hay the is ported from one part of the country to the other? That is the reality. Cattle have to eat during the winter. To do so requires some method of storage - and usually that is in the form of hay or grains.

Really? Most vegetarians grow and process their own vegetable matter? I find that hard to believe. Those bales get cut by making one pass through the pasture followed by a second pass with a baler a day or 2 later. The bales are then transported a mile or 2 back to the ranchers storage area.

Now soy beans. There is the fist pass through the field in the spring to disc the ground. The second pass to fertilize the ground. The third to plant the beans. The forth and possibly a fifth to apply herbicide/pesticide. The fifth/sixth to harvest the beans. The transportation of the beans to the local elevator (usually several miles). The use of huge grain dryers at the local elevator to reduce the moisture content in the beans to prevent spoilage. The transport by truck or train from the local elevator to the processor. The massive quantity of energy used to convert the beans for human consumption. Point is I don't know (or really care as both are necessary to our food chain) which if either is more earth friendly but to claim with certainty that crop production is greatly more carbon friendly is simply vegetarian propaganda. And to claim livestock production requires vastly more exertion of fossil fuels is completely false.

A lot of the world DOESN'T eat U.S. grains

Australia ALONE exports about a third of what the U.S. exports. Canada exports about a third of what the U.S. exports. In fact, it is not case of the world DEPENDING on us, we have too much to begin with (which is why corn sugar is in just about everything - because it is cheap as dirt). It is cheap because we can't sell enough. The magic of economics.

Nonsense, much of the world would be much hungrier if it wasn't for US grain (and food in general) exports.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/agr_gra_coa_gra_exp-agriculture-grains-coarse-grain-exports




Here is the final part that is really lovely about vegetable matter. It composts nicely. What you call "waste" others call "tea" (www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/ airwaste/wm/recycle/Tea/tea1.htm).

Yep, and livestock can compost the same material more efficiently in a fraction of the time needed for bacterial composting.

The REAL truth

Ranchers feed their animals the cheapest feed possible. I know because I talk with them. It may be corn foliage one year, hay the next. Sometimes it is what I call "crap hay" which is just a nasty field with weeds that gets baled. And these are the animals that end up on peoples tables.

When I raise a steer I do feed him better than most production cattle eat. I generally get an orphan and bottle feed it until he goes onto real feed. He grazes my 3 acre brome pasture during the spring, summer and fall months, April-early October. I feed him around 1 pound of cracked corn per day year round. During the late fall, winter, and early spring I keep a round bale of either alfalfa, sorghum or corn stalks in my round bale feeder. He will eat 1/2 to 3/4 round bale per month when he is in his 2nd to 3rd year. The last 60 days before taking him to the butcher I feed a mixture of grain and feed grade sorghum molasses and no forage. I have to buy my grain and forage for the prevailing rate. My steer ends up costing me $1.50 to $1.75 per pound on the hoof ($2.25-$2.50 processed) not including the hours and hours of time involved feeding and caring for him every single day(which I enjoy). I know exactly what went into every steak in my freezer. I could go to the livestock auction and buy a slaughter steer for $.90 to $1.10. The quality of the meat wouldn't be as good (not even close), the bought steer would undoubtedly had a growth hormone pellet placed in his ear as a calf (something I never do).

The point of my posts isn't how angelic beef production is, I especially have problems with factory style beef production, it is simply in response to the OP and other claims that cow farts are responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases or beef production in general is a ridiculesly inefficient source of food. Both claims are simply militant vegetarian propaganda IMO.

Edited for clarity.

[MadHound]

164. While I like what you say, for the most part, I have to disagree with you about factory farms

They are indeed an environmental disaster. Those state of the art sewage systems are nothing more than holding ponds, poorly constructed ones at that, that leak raw sewage into the local groundwater, contaminating well for miles around.

In addition, there is the issue of the smell, which can waft for miles. Not only is this extremely unpleasant for neighbors near and far, but it also drives down property values for miles around.

In addition, with over stressed animals in close confinement, you've just set up the perfect breeding grounds for all kinds of fun diseases, thus necessitating the injection of large doses of anti-biotics and other drugs that get passed up the food chain to you and I. In addition, when the anti-biotics and other drugs don't work, as is becoming increasingly common, we have a wonderful communicable disease that is drug resistant. Not a good thing.

Furthermore, factory farms are destroying rural life. Whereas once a family farmer was able to make a good living on the land, he is now being run off his farm, beaten the the economics of extreme scale. In addition, this is killing many small farming towns as more and more family farmers fail and move into the city.

Then there is, quite frankly, the matter of taste. There is nothing better tasting than a steak that comes from a happy, organically raised, stress free cow. Factory farms stress out all animals, all the time. Thus various chemicals are released throughout the cows life, tainting the taste of the meat and making it tough.

Finally, this trend in factory farming is putting our food supply into the hands of a very few group of producers. From both an economic, environmental and public health point of view, this is a very bad thing.

This is why I'm helping out the family farm movement, finding ways to compete with these big behemoths and drive them from the agricultural scene. It is in all our interests to rid ourselves of factory farms, the sooner the better. They're a disaster waiting to happen in more ways than one.

[kerrylus]

43. I agree

I have heard that to stop eating/buying red meat actually reduces your carbon footprint more than switching to a hybrid vehicle.

[goodhue]

55. Jeremy Rifkin wrote the book about this 15 years ago . . .

http://www.foet.org/books/beyond-beef.html

[alarimer]

60. Excessive production of carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, not methane

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has nearly doubled since we started taking measurements (based on the analysis of ice core samples and the like). And the average globe temperature has gone up along with that. Methane is minuscule in comparison. Every animal produces CO2 but the excess comes entirely from burning fuel. The best thing we could do is stop driving so much, use more fuel efficient technologies like wind and solar.

[TexasBushwhacker]

68. Yup, and the biggest producer of methane is ....

drum roll please - LANDFILLS! So it's not just about meat, it's about how much organic matter we waste.

BTW, they tend to lump all greenhouse gases coming from agriculture together. Rice agriculture is a significant methane source as well.

[yewberry]

75. You're mistaken.

It's wetlands, though that has slowed in recent years as wetlands in the northern hemisphere have presumably been drying up.

Of the anthropogenic sources of methane, landfills take third or fourth place.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#4211

[TexasBushwhacker]

77. Different stats from EPA

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

[yewberry]

72. Methane isn't insignificant, though.

The amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled in the last 200 years. It is a smaller proportion, yes, but it is more than 20x as efficient at trapping heat than CO2. We absolutely do need to stop driving so much and use more efficient technologies, but CH4 is a real problem.

[Akoto]

63. I have invented a partial solution to this problem.

http://imageshack.us>

[DrunkenMaster]

76. you can have my steak

when you pry it from my bloated, cancer-ridden colon.

Beef: its the food of choice for obese suburban dipshits everywhere!

[DarkTirade]

91. I've always been more of a poultry eater myself. :P

the few rare occasions when I eat red meat, it's usually mutton.

[Emillereid]

94. You have to consider the quality of the food for human consumption.

Corn (fed to cows) for instance has about 7.6 grams of protein per 100 grams(dry). In order to satisfy an adult male (conservative) RDA for protein of 60 grams per day, if he ate the corn instead of the cow, he would have to ingest about 790 grams. This would be about 2800 calories. He would only have to eat about 200 grams of lean top sirloin for about 400 calories to obtain his RDA for protein (superior amino acid profile, btw as well as better profile in other nutrients.) As far as staurated fat goes -- excess carbohydrates turn into saturated fat -- that's the kind of new fat every mammal makes. One of the reasons that cows are given corn is to fatten them up. Corn is in everything we eat in America in one form or another -- that and soy. As one scientist said - Americans are tortilla chips on two legs! I believe the excess corn that's been dumped in our food supply is behind much of the obesity we've observed in the last couple of decades.

The real issue I believe is industrial factory farming -- feedlots and corn feeding are terrible. Corn is not the natural food for cattle -- grass is. Corn changes the pH of the cow's stomach and causes all sorts of health and digestive problems - among them the copious production of methane. Monocultural farming -- plant or animal is destructive on so many fronts. Both poison the land and wreck the water table.

We need a return to diversified farming - animals and plants together -- they form an ecological balance. If we had any sense we would allow the praire land to revert to grasses and let the cattle roam. Send poultry in behind them as the clean up crews -- they love the larvae that grow in the dung -- makes for excellent chicken meat and eggs. Grassfed beef is far superior nutritionally too. (If you're worried about saturated fat in beef (I'm not, btw), grassfed beef has an excellent fatty acid profile. Vegetable fat has too much omega 6 fat for me.)

Cows are amazing they turn stuff that's totally inedible to us into a powerhouse food! Buy grassfed!

[mcg]

101. Vegetarians don't get their protein from corn! nt

[Emillereid]

103. No, they usually get their protein from over-processed, unnatural soy.

I was actually responding to the claim that if humans just ate the grain directly it would be more efficient than running it through the cow.

They are cutting down the amazon to raise soy as well, btw.

Also while some people seem to do alright as a vegetarian, many of us do not -- I followed Robbins/Ornish advice for about 3 years and I have never been so unhealthy in my life. It did spur me on to become a nutritionist though. BTW, vegetarian do not live longer - in fact, female vegetarians do not live nearly as long as their non-veggie sisters.

..."The table below presents the annual death rates for vegetarians and nonvegetarians which Smith derived from the raw data in the seven-year Burr and Sweetnam study. As can be seen, the "marked" difference between vegetarian and nonvegetarian men in Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) was only .11 percent. The difference in all-cause death rate was in the opposite direction, a fact that Burr and Sweetnam failed to mention. Moreover, the IHD and all-cause death rates among females were actually slightly greater for heart disease and substantially greater for all causes in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians.


Annual Death Rates of
Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians
IHD
All-Cause
Male vegetarians .22% .93%
Male nonvegetarians .33% .88%
Female vegetarians .14% .86%
Female nonvegetarians .10% .54%

These results are absolutely not supportive of the proposition that vegetarianism protects against either heart disease or all-cause mortalities. In fact, they indicate that vegetarianism is more dangerous for women than for men.''' more at link : http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vegetarianism.html

Actually the www.westonaprice.org and http://www.beyondveg.com/ are both excellent sites!

I'm an omnivore like my ancestors.

[yewberry]

106. "Weston A Price...an excellent site!"

:rofl:

And you're quoting an article written by the president and the vice-president of the Weston A Price Foundation, who are in turn quoting a Weston A Price-funded statistician "extrapolating" from someone else's data!

:rofl:

[Emillereid]

124. Mary Enig is a first class scientist - she and her team of chemists did

the basic benchwork exposing trans-fats in our food supply. For her efforts, she was threatened and maligned by the 'edible' oil industry. In the article I sent you, Fallon and Enig were looking at the actual data -- not the spin often associated with nutritional studies -- always read past the abstract and conclusion and look at the real numbers -- that's where the truth lies.

If you want to explore another view of vegetarianism and meat eating explore these articles at WAP - http://www.westonaprice.org/tour/vegtourindex.html

In addition to the two sites I sent you yesterday -- you might also want to explore: http://thincs.org/

[yewberry]

130. She may be.

However, she and Fallon are responsible for disseminating some incredibly bad "science."

WAP is well-known for being anti-vegetarian and anti-soy crusaders. Mary Enig should dissociate herself from WAP and its quackery and scare tactics.

[Emillereid]

133. I see you didn't take a look at the link regarding vegetarianism at WAP.

If you want to explore another view of vegetarianism and meat eating explore these articles at WAP - http://www.westonaprice.org/tour/vegtourindex.html

Specifically read the article: http://www.westonaprice.org/tour/vegtourindex.html

They are not as hostile as you seem to believe.

Regarding soy -- yes they are crusading against the over-processed multi-quizillon dollar industry (much of it funded by Monsanto). They have no problem with the traditional fermented soy foods such as miso, natto, tamari, etc. The fermentation process of these foods diminish the phytic acids that interfere with mineral absorption and the goitrogens that mess with thyroid function. They have the same cautionary views with regard to non-sprouted grains and nuts and pasteurized dairy products. One of their main purposes is to revive small, diversified farms -- they are no friend to factory farming of animals nor monocultural plant farming -- both are corporate run monstrosities that are ultimately damaging and unsustainable. One would think that vegetarians could agree with these aims.

[yewberry]

138. I've read WAP pretty extensively.

And I do know how hostile they are.

I've read their take on the ethics of eating meat ("Vegetarians kill plants!") and their "myths of vegetarianism" article has spread far and wide over the web. I've read how they believe that zinc deficiency is responsible for what they call vegetarian "spaciness," which they then claim we interpret as some kind of spiritual experience. Their bizarre take on vegetarianism as eco-terrorism is also not endearing. I feel no need to read their "Letter to vegetarians"-they've made their positions clear.

Crusading against Monsanto is a good thing. However, perpetuating lies about soy is not, and WAP does just that.

I agree completely with working against corporate/factory farming, but the contempt that they've shown for vegetarians and vegans makes it very difficult to see them as allies in any way.

[Emillereid]

141. Well, you should have read the letter -- it's anything but contemptuous.

And, like it or not, there is a lot of scientific literature that suggests negative things about soy. Some research is positive - but a lot is not. It may depend on the form, age, gender -- it's not clear yet. Heads-up, most of it is GMO. I do this kind of research all the time, btw. I don't depend on WAP - I read the original journal articles -- but I can't send those via DU and my university doesn't permit me to distribute them willy-nilly -- copyright obligations.

BTW, vegetarians do kill plants -- such is the nature of life - life depends on life. But I don't recall that WAP makes an issue of it.

Also the eco-terrorism article speaks to the issue of the artificial fertilizers and pesticides an all 'plant' based agriculture requires. In a mixed, diversified system organic animal manure is used as the nitrogen source.

A book I recommend is Against the Grain by Richard Manning - takes it all the way back to the agricultural revolution as does the recent DVD 'What a Way to Go - Life at the End of Empire."

We made a terrible bargain with grains. ONe theory is that we succumbed to the opiates in grain. I don't know if you know -- but pre-agricultural human bones indicate that the people were far and away healthier, taller, larger brains, etc. than those that lived after agriculture. They also worked less for their food and shelter. We have only recently regained our original height as more protein has been added to our diet.

Let us all work for a sustainable, chemical free food supply.

[yewberry]

142. Why?

Why should I bother? Their letter might be conciliatory, but their actions are wretched.

Let me be clear here: regardless of positive or negative studies about soy, the Weston A. Price Foundation tells LIES. They draw flawed conclusions and make statements based on speculation. They flat-out lie.

And I'm aware that vegetarians kill plants--but to use that fact as a basis in an argument for the ethics of killing animals (which they do) is incredibly disingenuous and stupid.

The eco-terrorism article is another fine piece of shite. "Vegan wasteland"--does the WAPF envision that suddenly the whole world will become vegan and domesticated animals will disappear? Riiiiight. And in an ideal world, animal manure would be used as a nitrogen source...but we both know that's not actually the case in practice. Large operations use petrochemical-based products, not manure. So, this article argues for a system that doesn't actually exist by creating a nightmare scenario that won't actually exist, but does do a fine job of headlining vegetarians as eco-terrorists. Great!

I'll work for a sustainable, chemical-free food supply, but I won't be working with anyone like the folks at WAP.

[Emillereid]

147. You might not agree with the conclusions of WAP --but they don't lie.

Mary Enig and Sally Fallon go to great lengths to reference their statements to scientific research that has been published in peer reviewed journals. Are there conflicting results sometimes - you betcha. And do scientists sometimes trust the research methods of some studies more than others -- yes they do. As I alluded to before - quite often researchers put a spin on their results belied by their own data. So it's important to listen to just the data itself.

The eco-terrorism article makes the correct conclusion that 'if we all became vegetarian' and domestic animals were gone, the only source of nitrogen we'd have would be chemical, unless you want to believe human sewage could ever be made clean enough. I would argue that we have to work for ideal farming methods -- they were the ones in place not long ago, so they are tried and true - because the current system of growing both animals and plants is unsustainable. I know vegetarians that indeed would have us never eat any animal product -- that being the case, we certainly don't have the room nor the resources to keep them alive as pets. What they don't want to admit is that plant agriculture is also incredibly harmful. Christ, George Lovelace reckons we've so abused the planet that he would like us to make our food in chemical factories and give the earth a much needed rest. I don't think we have to do that -- I think we have to adopt age-old, traditional farming methods and that is what WAP advocates. My parents grew up on such a farm -- raised all sorts of animals and plants together. My uncle still shows everyone pictures of his prize bulls as if they were members of the family. The problem is corporate control of our land and food -- and like other aspects of our society and culture we have to dismantle the corporate/fascist state and take back control if we are to survive. Two good books to read are The Omnivore's Dilemma and Diet for a Poison Planet.

[yewberry]

151. Whether I agree or not isn't the point.

They draw conclusions and make statements that aren't scientifically supported. That's also known as lying.

They suggest that soy is responsible for "epidemic" learning disabilities in boys---with no citation. They link future sexual orientation and testes size in boys to soy--even though their citation is based on animal studies and human gestational exposure to DES, not soy or phytoestrogen. Early-onset puberty in girls? Oh, yep, that's soy--with a citation that doesn't address soy, and they actually go on say that 50% of African-American girls show signs of puberty by age 8, which of course can be a harbinger of reproductive problems and breast cancer later in life. And what does that have to do with soy? Uh, well, something, we think. And what is up with their inclusion of their crazy parrot anecdote? They actually try to assert that the experience of feeding parrots processed soy products is somehow a parallel to feeding human children soy formula? Parrots?

They claim that soybeans weren't considered food until a few decades ago--even in Asia. Um, no, that's a bit of a sidestep, as they acknowledge that tofu probably originated in 2nd C BCE, and their claim that soy consumption in Japan has traditionally been essentially as a condiment alongside a meal of meat and fish is unsupported and highly questionable.

The there's that "spacey feeling that some vegetarians may mistake for the "high" of spiritual enlightenment" crack. That's not only unsupported, it's damned insulting. How about "Vegetarians who consume tofu and bean curd as a substitute for meat and dairy products risk severe mineral deficiencies." As opposed to everyone else in the world who doesn't plan their diet? And where's the data?

There's also the great WAPF tradition of weird citations, too. Is the "Cheese Market News" a peer-reviewed journal? How about citing their own articles?

(All of the above can be found in "Tragedy and Hype," Enig & Fallon, 2000)


And the "vegetarian eco-terrorism" article is scare-mongering fantasy. The whole world is not going to convert to veganism, regardless of what a few people want. There are people who believe that SUVs shouldn't exist and some who think think GW Bush should move to become president for-life. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, and demonizing vegetarians is poor coalition-building (to say the least.)

Wresting back land and food production from corporate interests is important, and traditional farming techniques are vastly less damaging to the environment (and produce better food) than the current system. The WAPF, despite sharing some goals with vegetarians and consumers' rights groups, doesn't feel like a trustworthy ally to me.

[Emillereid]

154. I think you must have overlooked these references:

References

Program for the Third International Symposium on the Role of Soy in Preventing and Treating Chronic Disease, Sunday October 31 through Wednesday, November 3, 1999, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, DC
Dean Houghton, "Healthful Harvest," The Furrow, January 2000, pages 10-13
Richard J Coleman "Vegetable Protein—A Delayed Birth?" Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, April 1975, 52:238A
See www.unitedsoybean.org
These are listed in www.soyonlineservice.co.nz>www.soyonlineservice.co.nz
Wall Street Journal, October 27, 1995
James F Smith, "Healthier tortillas could lead to healthier Mexico," The Denver Post, August 22, 1999, page 26A
"Bakery says new loaf can help reduce hot flushes," Reuters, September 15, 1997
"Beefing Up Burgers with Soy Products at School," Nutrition Week, Community Nutrition Institute, Washington, DC June 5, 1998, page 2
John Urquhart, "A Health Food Hits Big Time," Wall Street Journal, August 3, 1999, page B1
"Soyabean Milk Plant in Kenya," Africa News Service, September 1998
Frederick J Simoons, Food in China: A Cultural and Historical Inquiry, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1991, page 64
Soloman H Katz, "Food and Biocultural Evolution: A Model for the Investigation of Modern Nutritional Problems," Nutritional Anthropology, Alan R. Liss Inc., 1987, page 50
Joseph J Rackis, et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details," Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition , 1985, volume 35
Van-Rensburg, et al, "Nutritional status of African populations predisposed to esophageal cancer," Nutrition and Cancer, 1983 4:206-216; P B Moser, et al, "Copper, iron, zinc and selenium dietary intake and status of Nepalese lactating women and their breast-fed infants," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 1988, 47:729-734; B F Harland, et al, "Nutritional status and phytate: zinc and phytate X calcium: zinc dietary molar ratios of lacto-ovo-vegetarian Trappist monks: 10 years later," Journal of the American Dietetic Association, December 1988, 88:1562-1566
A H El Tiney, "Proximate Composition and Mineral and Phytate Contents of Legumes Grown in Sudan," Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 1989, 2:67-68
A D Ologhobo,et al, "Distribution of phosphorus and phytate in some Nigerian varieties of legumes and some effects of processing," Journal of Food Science, January/February 1984, 49:(1):199-201
B Sandstrom, et al, "Effect of protein level and protein source on zinc absorption in humans," Journal of Nutrition, January 1989, 119:(1):48-53; Susan Tait, et al, "The availability of minerals in food, with particular reference to iron," Journal of Research in Society and Health, April 1983, 103:(2):74-77.
Phytate reduction of zinc absorption has been demonstrated in numerous studies. These results are summarized in Richard Leviton, Tofu, Tempeh Miso and Other Soyfoods: The "Food of the Future"—How to Enjoy Its Spectacular Health Benefits, Keats Publishing, Inc., New Canaan, CT 1982, pages 14-15.
Edward Mellanby, "Experimental rickets: The effect of cereals and their interaction with other factors of diet and environment in producing rickets," Journal of the Medical Research Council, March 1925 93:2-65; M R Wills, et al, "Phytic Acid and Nutritional Rickets in Immigrants," The Lancet, April 8,1972, pages 771-773.
Joseph J Rackis, et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details," Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition, 1985, volume 35
Joseph J Rackis, et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details," Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition, 1985, 35:232.
Wallace, G.M., "Studies on the Processing and Properties of Soymilk," Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, October 1971, 22: 526-535.
Joseph J Rackis, et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details," Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition, 1985, 35:22; "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients," Prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014, Contract No, FDA 223-75-2004, 1979
See www.truthinlabeling.org
Joseph, J Rackis, "Biological and physiological Factors in Soybeans," Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, January 1974, 51:161A-170A
Joseph J Rackis, et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details," Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition, 1985, volume 35
Benjamin Torum, "Nutritional Quality of Soybean Protein Isolates: Studies in Children of Preschool Age," Soy Protein and Human Nutrition, Harold L Wilcke, et al, eds, Academic Press, New York, 1979
Marwin Zreik, CCN, "The Great Soy Protein Awakening," Total Health, February 2000, Vol 32, No 1,
IEH assessment on Phytoestrogens in the Human Diet, Final Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK, November 1997, page 11
Food Labeling: Health Claims: Soy Protein and Coronary Heart Disease, Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 101 (Docket No. 98P-0683)
Daniel M Sheegan and Daniel R Doerge, Letter to Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305) February 18, 1999
James W Anderson, et al, "Meta-analysis of the Effects of Soy Protein Intake on Serum Lipids," New England Journal of Medicine, 1995 333:(5):276-82
Camille Guy, "Doctors warned against magic, quackery," New Zealand Herald, September 9, 1995, Section Eight, Page 5
Kate Sander and Hilary Wilson, "FDA approves new health claim for soy, but litte fallout expected for dairy," Cheese Market News, October 22, 1999, page 24
Mary G Enig, and Sally Fallon, "The Oiling of America," Nexus Magazine, December 1998-January 1999 and February 1999-March 1999, also available at www.WestonAPrice.org
"Natural Medicine News," L & H Vitamins, 32-33 47th Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101, January/February 2000, page 8
Angela Harras, Ed. Cancer Rates and Risks, 4th Edition, 1996, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute
Charles E Searle, Ed, Chemical Carcinogens, ACS Monograph 173, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1976
C Nagata, et al, Journal of Nutrition, 1998, 128:209-13
T Colin Campbell, et al, The Cornell Project in China
K C Chang, ed, Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Persepctives, New Haven, 1977
Mark J Messina, et al, "Soy Intake and Cancer Risk: A Review of the In Vitro and In Vivo Data," Nutrition and Cancer, 1994, 21:(2):113-131
Joseph J Rackis, et al, "The USDA trypsin inhibitor study. I. Background, objectives and procedural details," Qualification of Plant Foods in Human Nutrition, 1985, volume 35
N L Petrakis, at al, "Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre-and postmenopausal women," Cancer Epid Bio Prev 1996, 5:785-794
C Dees, et al, "Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to enter the cell cycle," Environmental Health Perspectives 1997, 105(Suppl 3):633-636
D J Woodhams "Phytoestrogens and parrots: The anatomy of an investigation," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society of New Zealand, 1995, 20:22-30
G Matrone et al, "Effect of Genistin on Growth and Development of the Male Mouse, Journal of Nutrition, 1956, 235-240
Y Ishizuki, et al, "The effects on the thyroid gland of soybeans administered experimentally in healthy subjects," Nippon Naibunpi Gakkai Zasshi 1991, 767: 622-629
R L Divi, et al, "Anti-thyroid isoflavones from the soybean," Biochemical Pharmacology, 1997, 54:1087-1096
A Cassidy, et al "Biological Effects of a Diet of Soy Protein Rich in Isoflavones on the Menstrual Cycle of Premenopausal Women," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1994 60: 333-340 (1994).
P A Murphy, "Phytoestrogen Content of Processed Soybean Foods," Food Technology, 1982, pages 50-54
Bulletin de L'Office Federal de la Sante Publique, No 28, July 20, 1992
W M Keung, "Dietary estrogenic isoflavones are potent inhibitors of B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase of P testosteronii," Biochemical and Biophysical Research Committee 1995, 215:1137-1144; S I Makela, et al, "Estrogen specific 12 B-hydroxysteroid oxidoreductase type 1 (E.C. 1.1.1.62) as a possible target for the action of phytoestrogens," PSEBM, 1995, 208:51-59
K D R Setchell, et al, "Dietary estrogens - a probable cause of infertility and liver disease in captive cheetahs," Gastroenterology 93: 225-233 (1987); A S Leopold, "Phytoestrogens: Adverse effects on reproduction in California Quail," Science, 1976, 191: 98-100; Drane HM et al, "Oestrogenic activity of soya-bean products," Food Cosmetics and Technology, 1980, 18: 425-427; S Kimura, et al "Development of malignant goiter by defatted soybean with iodine-free diet in rats," Gann, 1976, 67:763-765; C Pelissero, et al, "Estrogenic effect of dietary soy bean meal on vitellogenesis in cultured Siberian Sturgeon Acipenser baeri," Gen Comp End 83:447-457; Braden et al, " The oestrogenic activity and metabolism of certain isoflavones in sheep," Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 1967 18:335-348
Jean Ginsburg and Giordana M Prelevic, "Is there a proven place for phytoestrogens in the menopause?" Climacteric, 1999, 2:75-78
K D Setchell et al, "Isoflavone content of infant formulas and the metabolic fate of these early phytoestrogens in early life," American Jounral of Clinical Nutrition, December 1998, Supplement 1453S-1461S
C Irvine, et al, "The Potential Adverse Effects of Soybean Phytoestrogens in Infant Feeding," New Zealand Medical Journal, May 24, 1995, page 318
C Hagger and J Bachevalier, "Visual habit formation in 3-month-old monkeys (Macaca mulatta): reversal of sex difference follwoing neonatal manipulations of androgen," Behavior and Brain Reserach 1991, 45:57-63
R K Ross et al, "Effect of in-utero exposure to diethylstilbesterol on age at onset of puberty and on post-pubertal hormone levels in boys," Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 15, 1983, 128:(10):1197-8
Marcia E Herman-Giddens, et al "Secondary Sexual Characteristics and Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice: A Study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network," Pediatrics, April 1997, 99:(4):505-512
Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly, #263, The Wingspread Statement, Part 1, December 11, 1991; Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, Our Stolen Future, Little Brown and Company, London, 1996.
L W Freni-Titulaer, "Premature Thelarch in Puerto Rico, A search for environmental factors," American Journal of Diseases of Children, December 1986, 140:(12):1263-1267
Lon White, "Association of High Midlife Tofu Consumption with Accelerated Brain Aging," Plenary Session #8: Cognitive Function, The Third International Soy Symposium, Program, November 1999, page 26
Helen Altonn, "Too much tofu induces ‘brain aging,' study shows," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, November 19, 1999
Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 1998, 46:816-21
Daniel R Doerge, "Inactivation of Thryoid Peroxidase by Genistein and Daidzein in Vitro and in Vivo; Mechanism for Anti-Thyroid Activity of Soy," presented at the November, 1999 Soy Symposium in Washington, DC National Center for Toxicological Research, Jefferson, AR 72029
Claude Hughes, Center for Women's Health and Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
Soy Intake May Affect Fetus," Reuters News Service, November 5, 1999
"Vegetarian diet in pregnancy linked to birth defect," British Journal of Urology International, January 2000, 85:107-113
FDA ref 72/104, Report FDABF GRAS - 258
"Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Soy Protein Isolates as Food Ingredients," Prepared for FDA by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of Americann Societies for Experimental Biology, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20014, Contract No, FDA 223-75-2004, 1979


About the Authors
Sally Fallon is the author of Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats, Second Edition 1999 (New Trends Publishing 877-707-1776 or 219-268-2601) and President of the Weston A Price Foundation, Washington, DC, www.WestonAPrice.org

Mary G. Enig, PhD is the author of Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol 2000 (www.BethesdaPress.com), President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association and Vice President of the Weston A Price Foundation, Washington, DC

The authors wish to thank Mike Fitzpatrick, PhD and Valerie & Richard James for their help in preparing this article.

http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/tragedy.html

And as far as the eco-terrorism article -- you seem to be relying on not everyone making the vegetarian choice as your argument -- all the article is doing is following the consequences of veganism to its logical conclusion. And I don't know about you but I've met more than my share of vegan crazies who do want the whole world to go vegan and call us meat eaters 'murderers.' The ones I've known appear to follow veganism less as a "healthy" lifestyle than as a cult-like religion. If you enjoy your vegetarian food choices, great! - that leaves more meat for me.

[yewberry]

163. I didn't overlook those references.

I pointed out the unsourced claims and unsupported suppositions made in the article. Bad science.

And as to the WAP "vegetarian eco-terrorism" article--yes, I'm relying on the whole world not going vegan because I live here, and that's not going to happen.

Insult veganism all you want--it doesn't really advance your cause.

[Emillereid]

170. The few sentences you didn't like were clearly speculative -- the tentative

language is obvious.

And I didn't insult veganism -- I would think you would agree that vegans who call meat eaters murderers are out there and on the crazy side. I have no problem with vegans or vegetarians -- I don't have an agenda. I think there are problems from a nutritional standpoint with the vegan diet - but if properly supplemented and planned, it can work. I wouldn't rely on fractionated soy protein isolates for protein though -- they are too new and untested -- and the processing method is abominable. Traditional sources of soy are fine and eaten in moderation probably won't do any harm -- unless one has thyroid issues or any problems absorbing minerals. The lack of long chain omega 3 fatty acids are a concern, but if the person has no problem converting the medium chain omega threes into the longer forms, this too should not be too much of an issue. If I had my druthers people would not raise children on a vegan diet -- but I'm not going to try and stop them. I hope vegans are careful -- 90% of soy is GMO and that's another kettle of concern. The one use of soy I think should be discouraged is baby formula -- there are better alternatives. Soy formula leads to incredibly high levels of estrogenic compounds that have no business in a baby's body. Asians might wean their older children to soy milk, but they tend not to use soy formula. Enough said.

[feloneous cat]

135. Ah, soybeans in the rainforst...

They are cutting down the amazon to raise soy as well, btw.

I assume it is this amazon we are talking about? http://www.nature.org/wherewework/southamerica/brazil/work/art15385.html

I looked at your article at http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vegetarianism.html and it basically a poorly written article. When it says "no data was found" they take it to mean that "vegetarianism is bad for you" (or at least offers nothing significant). BUT then you get this gem:

In a review of some 3,000 articles in the scientific literature, Smith found only two that compared mortality data for vegetarians and nonvegetarians. One was a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs). Two very poor analyses of the data were published in 1984, one by H. A. Kahn and one by D. A. Snowden.

Niiiice.

However, the bottom like kicker is this: THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHAT THE SAMPLE WAS!

Was 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? WE DON'T KNOW!

This is what is called lying through omission. It has the look of something genuine with just enough pertinent facts missing to prevent you from going "oh, I see".

Almost like there was an agenda...

But lets look at the numbers! The numbers say that in a population of 10,000, if they were all vegetarian there would be 22 people with heart disease. Non-vegetarians, 33. Did they bother to take into account other risk factors (family history for example?) WE DON'T KNOW!

Junk science is still junk science.

[Emillereid]

157. I'm glad there is some responsible soy cultivation -- but that's not

always the case.

"Soy -- at this moment -- is the most important driver for deforestation, directly and indirectly," says environmental analyst Jan Maarten Dros. "Directly because the cerrado is being converted from natural vegetation into soy fields. But indirectly, because in this region a lot of cattle farms are being replaced by soy farmers buying or renting land from cattle farmers." This means, according to Dros' 2003 WWF study on the impacts of soybean cultivation in Brazil, that the "cattle farmers tend to advance into new forest area, causing more deforestation." http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11756

"However, the bottom like kicker is this: THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHAT THE SAMPLE WAS!

Was 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? WE DON'T KNOW!

This is what is called lying through omission. It has the look of something genuine with just enough pertinent facts missing to prevent you from going "oh, I see"."

Enig and Fallon don't have to give you the numbers from the original study -- they give you the reference. If you want to see the subject population - go to the original. One would assume that if it was published in a decent journal and was conducted over several years it would have sufficient subjects to give it enough statistical power. Also they are examining the science behind the assertion that veggies live longer. One of the studies showed that male non-veggies had .11 greater Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD )incidence than male veggies, whereas female non-veggies had .04 less than female veggies. More importantly the data for ALL CAUSE DEATH was higher among the Veggies - both male and female. In the case of females -- the differential was an alarming .32. Oddly enough Enig and Fallon didn't go on the claim that the vegetarian lifestyle was deadly, only that the assertion that veggies live longer was not supported.

BTW, this is the kind of reporting you get in the statin trials -- lower heart incidents among those treated, but higher deaths overall -- especially from cancer. They don't usually put that bit out in the media release -- but some of us like to read the boring methods and results sections of the studies. They also like to tout statin 'miracles' in relative rather than the appropriate absolute statistics.

[pipoman]

105. Good post

As for the statement: "makes for excellent chicken meat and eggs."

I agree. Everyone wants our free range eggs. We provide enough eggs for 5 families. The yolks are yellower and the whites are stiffer than store bought eggs. We buy Rhode Island Reds for meat production. Most people who are used to grocery store or Col Sanders chickens don't like range birds. They would rather have the commercially raised cornish cross variety which go from hatchling to 4 lbs in 6 weeks (you can tell it is time yo butcher them when they have no feathers left and can't stand up without toppling over breast first)...real chicken (with muscle tone and normal proportions)is too "gamey".

[Zhade]

96. Yes, we need better ways to obtain meat sustainably.

Humanity will unlikely ever convert fully to vegetarianism, so that's what has to happen.

[yewberry]

99. Do you think the ten percent reduction suggested in the OP

is too lofty a goal?

(I'm seriously asking, not challenging.)

[hedgetrimmer]

108. 10% in meat eating not greenhouse gas reduction

reread the article.

[yewberry]

110. Maybe you should reread my post.

I'm aware that we're talking about a 10% decrease in meat-eating.

What made you think otherwise?

[hedgetrimmer]

139. Well... this is what happened...

Tuesday night I was eating dinner, it was leftovers. My wife was pulling a 24 hr. shift and my son and I were home. I had some semolina bread, salad and lamb. I bit into a piece of the toasted bread and knocked off a corner of one of my teeth. Instantly I had serious pain and made several phone calls. My step daughter came over to watch my son and my wife met me at the hospital. The attending physician said I exposed the nerve in my tooth and prescribed percocet for pain relief. When I responded to your post I thought your post was in response to my post because I was all jizzly-fizzed on percocet... my bad. Tuesday I go to the dentist and until then I'll be posting under the influence. DUers beware!

[yewberry]

140. Sorry about your tooth.

That's some serious pain--hope it's better soon!

:hi:

[Zhade]

145. No, not at all.

NT!

[hedgetrimmer]

104. Multi-faceted issue...

Money, culture, quality of life, religious beliefs, economic beliefs, and the list goes on.... anyone can have an idealogical space in reference to this article however, the point is that 20% of total greenhouse gas comes from agricultural activities not from belching cows, albeit "livestock" has a "big impact" but not 20%...

When dealing with greenhouse gas on planet earth there is only one issue, greenhouse gas... many subsections referring to it's presence and tiny little arguments referring to minor cutbacks to the total of greenhouse gases.... but, the issue is how you as a living being on planet Earth are affecting that 100% of greenhouse gases... do what you can, if cutting back on meat is one for you than do it, if it's driving fuel efficient cars than do it, if it's turning off your computer than do it... the simple minor acknowledgments and actions are going to make impact in a greater way... if every human being on this planet could reduce their personal greenhouse gas contribution by 5%, we as a whole would see a reduction in greenhouse gas....

Get educated and take what action you can. Peace out.

[NotGivingUp]

113. A large amount of methane is coming from all those people eating veggies and carbs

that are hard to digest and cause so many of the health problems that just keep skyrocketing such as cancer, diabetes, etc.

[flvegan]

114. Wait...hold on

You're saying, with a straight face, that veggies and carbs are the cause of cancer, diabetes and whatever etc might cover?

I want to be sure I'm laughing my ass off for the right reasons.

[NotGivingUp]

116. Laugh all you want. High carbs = disease. n/t

[JudyM]

121. 1) There are plenty of vegetarian protein sources and 2) whole grains prevent disease

Depends on the type of carbs.

[NotGivingUp]

125. Whole grains do not prevent disease. n/t

[feloneous cat]

136. That's not an argument, it is merely contradiction.

What is your proof that grains and vegetables do not prevent disease? Or is it just a guess?

[Anwen]

129. 45-65% of our daily calories should come from carbs...

the problem is, people are eating the wrong kind of carbs in the form of sugar snacks, high fructose corn syrup, soda, overly processed white flour, etc. Those are the ones than can cause type 2 diabetes, weight gain, heart disease, etc.

Good carbs are necessary in our diets. People just don't eat enough of the good carbs in the form of whole wheat, veggies, fruits and dairy. Saying "carbs are bad" is simply wrong.

[Emillereid]

168. I tried that kind of diet for 3 years once -- whole, complex and healthy

carbs, nary a gram of sugar or white flour and I have never been so ill in my life. My cholesterol went way up, my HDL collapsed, my blood sugar rose and my triglycerides went through the roof. And I gained weight I'm still trying to lose. Finally I tipped that pyramid on its head and went the low carb route -- thankfully all the blood parameters went in the right direction. My TG/HDL went below 1 and my blood sugar is now a healthy 85. Lost some weight -- but not all yet. Low carb is not no car, but it does mean lots of good veggies -- in my estimation mother nature packs most of her nutrients in vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, greens, berries, etc. -- low starch! I indulge in Julian Bakery's 1 carb bread -- based mostly on seed flours. But you guys can keep the starch - it doesn't do this body good!

[benEzra]

118. High-carb, low-protein diets are strongly associated with Type 2 diabetes.

Glycemic loading plays a large part.

Now, eating carbs in moderation, and eating whole grains rather than refined flour, plus exercise, can head that off. But pigging out on carbs is just as harmful as pigging out on meat; carbs aren't free.

Meat in moderation is healthy; our teeth and digestive tracts are optimized for a mixed meat/veggie/grain diet. We are carnivorous primates, after all.

I think the real issue here should be farming practices. Cattle are not made to eat corn; they're made to eat grass. Trying to turn this into an omnivore vs. vegetarian, "don't eat meat" issue misses the real issue, which is livestock-farming methods that are bad for the environment vs. livestock-farming methods that are far more benign.

[Lorien]

120. The type of carbs are the key. Standard American diets that are high carb

are also high in sugar and, more importantly, high fructose corn syrup. A diet high in whole grain carbs generally does not lead to diabetes. In fact, most of the world has had such a diet for most of our species history.

We are not carnivorous primates. We are omnivores whose teeth are designed more for eating grains and veggies than meat. Let us compare some teeth:

Tiger, an obligate carnivore:



Raccoon, a true omnivore:



Horse, a herbivore:

[feloneous cat]

137. Correct!

Always look at the teeth. We have more teeth designed for grinding (vegetable matter) than for rending (meat).

[Lorien]

119. Kinda goes against...well, SCIENCE now doesn't it?

I'll admit that a Twinkie is far from a healthy choice, but Dr. Andrew Weil and every other reputable physician on earth would tell anyone that a diet high in veggies and whole grains is extremely healthy. Diets high in beef and pork lead to heart and cardiovascular disease, and also diabetes. I have my own father as a textbook example of this: he rarely eats ANYTHING that isn't an animal product; kind of like Adkin's, but without the veggies. He has heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, and wears a pacemaker. :-(

[yewberry]

127. "A large amount?" No, not really.

Human (bodily) methane emissions account for about one half of one percent of all animal emissions. It's just not comparable.

And vegetables cause cancer and diabetes? Who knew?

[Fran Kubelik]

115. This ad showed up when I clicked on this thread

that is so wrong. :)

[Speaker]

132. When they pry my cold, dead, hands from my steak knife... n/t

[tidy_bowl]

149. Beat me to it....

....you can pry my steak from my cold dead hand.

Lay off my Angus!

[Speaker]

158. The existence of Black Angus beef proves god loves us. n/t

[Speaker]

160. I believe we should have a free country here.

People who want to eat Black Angus should be able to eat all the cow they want to.

People who want to eat weeds should be allowed to eat all the weeds they want to.

Freedom of choice.

[Exultant Democracy]

166. So you are against banning smoking in public building too I take it

the logic is just the same. It isn't what you put in your body that matters, but what you put out there that the rest of us have to deal with, like second hand smoke or global warming.

Sorry buddy no man is an island.

[Speaker]

171. LOL

Can you explain to me how second hand beef can kill the person at the table next to you in the restaurant?

[Exultant Democracy]

172. Global Warming, DUH, global warming is going to kill a lot of people.

The famines in Ethiopia have already been attributed to global warming.

Do you even believe in global warming?

[hedgetrimmer]

146. it's possible that something has to fart

if human's eat too many vegatables than their farts may outdo the cows..........wouldn't that be funny....what kind of paradigm would we have then?

[yewberry]

148. Not really in the same ballpark. We're not ruminants.

Humans account for about 1/2 of one percent of all animal-produced methane.

(And when your body is accustomed to more fiber, that problem pretty much goes away.)

[pipoman]

150. Really?

Who produces this stat? Are they 'smart fellers' or 'fart smellers'?

Am I to believe another benefit of vegetarianism is no farting? or farts don't smell? or just no excessive realllly offensive flatulence?

Are all animals included in this or just livestock?

I would love to see the graphs and study notes for this scientific piece of genius. It must have been funded by the current pork barrel administration.

I can just see W, Dick, Rummy, and Condi sitting around watching a Texas Rangers game, drinking lone star beer, eating Tex-Mex nachos, scratching their nuts and measuring their fart volume.:rofl:

[yewberry]

153. Wow, I can't believe I'm getting so far into a fart discussion.

The percent figure was from "Science and Technology for Canadians."

And no, of course vegetarians fart. Everyone farts! Your body just gets accustomed to the diet and the reaction is less extreme. If someone went veg, they'd be pretty farty at first, but after a couple of weeks, they'd be a pretty normal farter.

Fun fact: less than half of human farters actually produce CH4!


edit: I just reread my post that you responded to--I was unclear that I was responding to the "if humans eat too many vegetables their farts might outdo cows" remark. I just meant that your body does adjust some to diet.

[Socal31]

152. I guess I better get to eating

more of the cows!

[2rth2pwr]

162. Save The Planet-Shoot A Cow

Preferably from your Prius.

Ban Legumes! Beans=Farts

Oh and don't forget the Belching Moose-
Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching

"The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey." http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,819135,00.jpg

[Feral Libertarian]

167. I have a thoughful reply to all this.........

....... but I need to go turn the big juicy steak on my grill over.

PS You eat what you want, and I won't hassle you over it, heck I don't even care, and in kind, I will eat what I want, and it is none of your business.

[2rth2pwr]

169. And I'll drive what I want

and it is none of John Edwards business.