The environmental benefits of vegetarianism

[jpak]

http://www.townonline.com/newton/artsLifestyle/view.bg?articleid=529805

Vegetarianism is not only a response to the inhumane practices of factory farms; it is also a way to conserve natural resources, improve the environment and benefit human health.

The meat industry is very wasteful of natural resources. An inherent problem with eating meat is that an animal must be fed roughly ten pounds of plants to produce one pound of meat. Therefore, much more food is consumed to support the animals than would be needed if more people were vegetarians. Seventy percent of the grain grown in the US is used to feed livestock. Because of the growth of so much animal feed, half the water consumed in the U.S. is used by the meat industry, and our groundwater is being withdrawn 25% faster than it is being replenished. In the High Plains states from South Dakota to New Mexico, it is projected that the aquifer will be depleted in 60 years. Erosion and nutrient depletion caused by animal feed production and overgrazing by livestock are destroying vast areas of arable land.

We are currently in an oil crisis, and the meat industry is exacerbating it. Eight times as much fossil fuel energy is used in the production of animal protein as is used in plant protein production due to the fuel required to manufacture fertilizers and pesticides for animal feed, to operate farming machinery, for transportation and for irrigation. Four hundred gallons of fossil fuels are used to produce food for the average meat-eating American each year.

A meat eater requires two to four times more farmland than a vegetarian. To make room for enough farmland, the meat industry constantly destroys vital ecosystems, thus taking away the habitats of myriad species and reducing biodiversity. The vast Amazon rainforest is rapidly being destroyed to make way for ranching and growing animal feed and will be gone by the end of this century if the current rate of destruction continues. Do you want to let this happen?

<more>

[kimmerspixelated]

1. Great Post!

I'm with ya on that!

[nam78_two]

Awesome post

I am on board 100% :)

:bounce: :yourock: :toast:

[ThomCat]

2. Even as a vegan, I don't like the idea

that feeding fewer animals is a good thing. It's a problem of emphasis.

I think we shouldn't be keeping them in captivity and breeding them for traits that make it impossible for them to survive on their own. So, ending the factory farming industry would be a good goal. But not feeding animals?

What are we going to do, have a world with only token presence of animals in a few zoos? Will the entire world become humans plus token animals? That seems to be the idea when people use this argument about feeding people instead of animals.

Of all the good reasons to stop eating the parts and extracts of animals, this is the one I don't usually discuss.

[LeftyMom]

4. Yeah but

if people were't eating them the domesticated versions wouldn't be bred. We'd still have wild relatives of cows, pigs and chickens and unlike thier domesticated cousins they do not suffer from thier overlarge breasts, shocking size, frequent egg-laying and other deformities created for human convenience. The pigs I visited with at Farm Sanctuary are unfortunately bad examples of this. They grow to such great sizes that they don't really move about much and they suffer from thier size. They looked almost like beached whales.

In a post-carnist world would some now-farmed animals perhaps be kept as companion animals? I suspect so, people keeps rabbits, chickens and goats (among other "food animals") for that purpose now.

So yeah, I think you have a point that the idea that feeding animals is a waste of human resources is one based in selfishness, but at the same time a significant reproduction in farmed animal breeding and population would reduce thier suffering far more than it would benefit humans.

[Kali]

5. wild relatives of cattle....

[LeftyMom]

8. Sure, do you think they sprung fully formed from the forehead of Zeus?

Domesticated cattle are descended from the european wild ox or aurochs, which went extinct centuries ago- the last known specimen died in 1629 in Poland. Other species of wild ox still exist.

[Kali]

12. you said it

Domesticated cattle are descended from the european wild ox or aurochs, which went extinct centuries ago-

[LeftyMom]

13. Guess why?

People ate 'em.

[Kali]

15. point is - no wild relatives to keep in your sanctuary

or whatever your fantasy is. Never mind losing the genetics of the domestic breeds after you just let them die out. Bad enough the corporate model does this unintentionally, your idea does it intentionally.

[LeftyMom]

19. Those domestic breeds are arteficial constructs

Losing one would be as great a loss as if idjit dog breeders stopped creating cockapoos (or whatever the overpriced mutt of the week is) because it's not something that nature intended at all. It's like saying we'd suffer for the lack of crop diversity if nobody planted roundup ready soybeans next year.

[Kali]

25. you have no clue about agriculture

everything you eat is an artificial construct. Try living on gathered fruits, seeds and vegetation, you'll do well, I'm sure. Nature is just nature, it doesn't have intentions.

[ThomCat]

28. I'll be she knows more than you do.

If not her, then I probably do. And so far she's said nothing that wasn't factual. You, on the other hand are being offensive.

[Kali]

31. well, I'm sure LM appreciates your back-up

but if there is anybody on DU that can hold her own, it is LeftyMom. :hi:

[XemaSab]

54. Kali is a rancher

LeftyMom is a vegan.

Ne'er the twain shall meet.

[Kali]

56. oh, you might be surprised at some of my friendships.

did you get th PM with the info?

[XemaSab]

59. I did...

thank you! :D

[LeftyMom]

42. Sure I do.

My family boarded horses on a little ranchette on what was then the edge of town when I was small and as soon as I could walk I was helping with them.

I spent my summers at my grandmother's house in KY, she was long retired but she and her husband were the only people in town who didn't farm at least on a small scale. As a result any time that wasn't spent waiting on tornadoes that thankfully never came I spent at the parsonage helping the minster's kids with thier chickens, riding thier horses through the tobacco fields outside of the little town, etc.

I was in 4H. My aunt and late uncle used to run a livestock auction.

No, I'm not a farm kid and I'm from a decent sized town, but I know where my food is and how it got to my plate.

[Kali]

61. Not much closer to agriculture than the rest of the 98% who no longer

have any connection. The disconnect explains so many things about not just your view, but the exact opposite view - the one that has NO respect for the animals or land. Both are kind of "unnatural" in my opinion.

[ThomCat]

63. You're jumping to conclusions.

There are a lot of us with hands-on experience on farms and with animals who have become vegetarians/vegans.

It's true that people who make money off of the death of animals are less likely to become vegetarians/vegans. They also talk more about respecting animals while they prepare to slaughter them. It makes you wonder how much they respect their kids.

[Kali]

65. Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions!

"make money off the death of animals" ok I can own that. Its true. More true than the statement "make money off the suffering of animals" which is also thrown around in the attempts to guilt people into conforming to the zealot-type vegan idea of what the world should be like. (not to be confused with tolerant-type vegan ideas)

Linking animal agriculture, and by virtue of the terminology you chose, anybody involved in the production, slaughter and processing, and sale, preparation and serving of meat for profit, with lack of respect (abuse?) of their children is such a broad, disgusting, and repulsive generalization as to pretty much negate your credibility entirely.

[ThomCat]

67. People who spend all their time trying to

paint vegetarians as the unethical ones, while trying to pretend that meat consumption is somehow necessary are the ones that lack credibility.

It was said here that we (veg*ns) don't respect animals. The implication is that people who raise and kill them do respect them. It is a very short, logical jump from this to anyone/anything else that these same people claim to respect.

[Kali]

71. well, you must not be talking about me beecause I dont spend all my

time trying to paint vegetarians as unethical. (althought certainly some extremists are - and that goes for all sides)

I can't find where someone said "veg*ans (?) don't respect animals", could you please show that to me?

There is no IMPLICATION "that people who raise and kill them do respect them" I said right out that I did and I know MANY MANY MANY others, both in this culture and around the world that do as well.

Your last sentence makes no sense to me.

[ThomCat]

9. Agreed.

There would be fewer animals, but they would be (hopefully) more free and treated better. Hopefully people would take much better care of them.

I don't know how many people would really keep the larger/messier animals as companions though.

I think the ethical thing to do would be to establish a lot of large nature preserves. But then we're still responsible for feeding and caring for them.

The overall effect though would be more food for people because the rediculously large corporate herds would not exist.

[Kali]

14. oh another good one

"and other deformities created for human convenience. " sort of like oh, JUST ABOUT ANYTHING YOU EAT. Do you really believe that your all-organic, vegan diet contains no organisms bred or "created for human convenience"?

OOOH the hand of man is evil.......

[LeftyMom]

16. I'm not stupid.

Of course many, if not most, of the plants I consume are the products of many years of breeding to make larger, healthier, tastier crops of them. On the other hand, not being an idiot, I can see the clear moral distinction between breeding a chicken that grows faster with more breast meat, but has a tendency to outgrow it's skeletal system and live it's short life in pain and with little mobility versus breeding a jucier tomato or a potato that needs less water.

[Kali]

23. no you are not stupid, so why do you always

spew extremist generalities? Why are your plant foods described as larger, healthier, tastier, and other peoples' animal foods described as deformities created for human convenience? (with the attendant implication that human convenience is somehow wrong)

[ThomCat]

26. Because those are the goals of the engineering.

Bigger, tastier plants are what sell. Larger, deformed animals with more flesh, more milk, is what sells.

Dairy cows now have udders so large, and produce so much milk that they could not survive on their own. They can barely walk. Chickens really are bred to have overly large breasts that make them front-heavy.

She's not spewing. She's being factual and reasonable. You're the one spewing. I think you owe her an apology.

[Kali]

36. I think you need to go visit some smaller scale ag operations.

Of course some of the traits we breed for are what sells...nobody really cares to eat the progenitors of most "modern" agriculture...yes there is extremism - especially in the corporate, humoungus-scale agBUISNESS operations, but there is choice and the more support those of us involved in trying to provide that choice get, the less that model needs to be used.


Almost no domestic animals (or plants) could "survive on their own" - that's sort of the DEFFINITION of domestication.

Funny, I had a discussion with LeftyMom not too long ago about dairy udders and she took a different viewpoint. Maybe you two ought to straighten each other out on that one.

:shrug:

[ThomCat]

41. I grew up on and around small scale farms.

We had our own pigs, cows, one bull, chickens, goats and rabits every year. We harvested our own apples and corn. I'm familiar with the environment.

You are correct, to an extent, that small farms do things differently from the large factory farms. But only to an extent. The animals on small farms are bred to a less extreme extent, but less extreme is still fairly extreme. The animals on small farms are not close to the original breeds that could survive on their own.

[Kali]

48. One bull????? Why?

Of course domestic animals are different and may or may not be able to surviive on their own (depends on type of animal, breed, environment and to some extent individuals) sort of what domestication means.

[ThomCat]

51. You only need one bull

to impregnate the cows. And one large bull per year provides a lot of beef for a small family.

[Kali]

53. OOPS -sorry. reading too fast, missed the cows and

thought you only had the bull. Thought I "gotcha" for sure! :rofl: (believe me, i have seen an heard worse!)

[smoogatz]

73. Bigger, more "attractive" plants/plant products sell.

Generally speaking, though, supermarket produce is insipid, tasteless crap--picked green and bred to sit on store shelves eternally without rotting. Another reason we live for summer, here in the midwest. Where it's raining cats-and-dogs at the moment.

[LeftyMom]

38. Because plants don't suffer from the manipulation

Chickens suffer from joint pain, sudden heart attacks "flip over syndrome," mineral loss from excessive laying and general discomfort from over-fast growth and a body type not found in nature. Dairy cattle bred and pharmaceuticly manipulated to produce far more milk than any calf could drink suffer from frequent bouts of mastitis (which is extrordinarily painful,) pigs suffer skeletal problems from thier rapid growth and extrordinary size.

A tomato bred to be juicier, well, it's jucier. It has no nerves, it doesn't hurt it to taste better. A corn variety bred to resist fungal diseases doesn't experience pain in exchance for it's hardiness.

There's really no comparison.

[Kali]

49. There is no need for any animal to suffer any of that with out resorting

to the extremism of restricting (in any interperetation of the word) humans to your version of an "ethical" diet.

There are millions of people all over the planet with well adapted cattle, pigs, chickens that in no way match your description of one sorry (albeit large western model) aspect of food production.

I eat what I consider to be an ethical diet. None of my animals suffer if I can do anything about it. The implication that because I eat (or even that I produce) food animals is somehow unethical is merely a human constructed political value judgement. It really has no meaning in nature.

[LeftyMom]

50. I'm not restricting anybody to anything. I couldn't if I wanted to .

That doesn't chance the fact that there's really no way to create less cruel animal agriculture on such a massive scale without even more risk to the environment. Healthier but slower growing animals would need more feed and water, excrete more waste, take up more land. Unless there were a broad commitment to eat a whole hell of a lot less animal products, they'd need to be exploited in even greater quantities and that's simply not ecologically sustainable or economical on the micro or macro scale.

The only sustainable solution is for those with options to abstain from eating flesh.

Meanwhile, the idea that ethics have no meaning in nature is not really one I can accept. Nature (evolution) has granted humankind the capacity to reason. We have the choice to use that capacity for the long-term benefit of our species and the planet at large or for short term gratification. To ask other animals to suffer and to die simply because their flesh tastes pretty good is the height of selfishness. To do it at the expense of the earth we leave to our children is unconscionable.

[Kali]

55. sorry, but

there is no need to create "less cruel animal ag" it already exists and has existed for thousands of years all over the planet.

they would not need MORE fed and water, just DIFFERENT and maybe even LESS feed. How would they possibly need more, just because you were doing something differently??? Same with "waste" and in a sustainable situation it isn't waste, it is fertilizer, soil amendment, - a valued commodity rather than something toxic that has to be stored.

"Once plants and animals were raised together on the same farm - which therefore neither produced unmanageable surpluses of manure, to be wasted and to pollute the water supply, nor depended on such quantities of commercial fertilizer. The genius of America farm experts is very well demonstrated here: they can take a solution and divide it neatly into two problems." - - Wendell Barry

A different way of doing things from the factory model does NOT mean there would be an INCREASE in numbers of animals "exploited" - that is not logical. (unless you are somehow trying to say that if we raised them all in a small farm/sustainable way the market and demand would INCREASE greatly???)

Nature or evolution does not GRANT things. If selfishness did not exist, we would not exist, but yes we seem to think we have "choices". I disagree that eating meat is any more or less inherently selfish than birthing new humans in the first place. More choices eh? What I do for a living is leaving a small part of the planet intact, functioning and hopefully MORE productive than what I found. That is a common ethic with family farms.

[smoogatz]

74. Fine with me if people eat less meat.

More ribeyes for me.

[Warpy]

3. I don't eat meat, haven't for a long time

and when I did, it was a very rare piece of free range chicken or organically raised beef that would convince me I still didn't like meat.

I do know people who have tried to be vegetarians because they hate what meat "farming" does to the planet and they have felt quite ill, even after that first difficult transition period had come and gone. Some people just seem to require meat, whether it's psychological or physical I can't say.

I don't think the smaller footprint vegetarianism leaves on our planet can be disputed. I'm just hoping for a little tolerance for the big footed among us. I would suggest that urging them to pay the extra bucks for sustainably and humanely raised meat might be the best first step.

[Kali]

6. people can't eat the kinds of roughage animals like cattle

can utilize. High quality protien, grown from the sun in one step up the pyramid. No need to feed petroleum-grown grain to cattle.

No need to destroy the Amazon or any other ecosystem to grow meat. Cattle can be managed to ENHANCE natural processes. Just a tool not a value judgement. Depends on HOW you use it, not that is simply exists.

[KurtNYC]

7. Well..."A meat eater requires two to four times more farmland than a vege"

I know people who shoot, butcher and eat deer. The deer eats plants in the forest. It walks into their yard, they shoot it. Put the extra meat in the freezer. Lasts for months. How does that use more farmland?

[LeftyMom]

Averages

Very few Americans or other first world dwellers eat wild game for even a small percentage of thier diet. The vast majority of meat consumed in this country comes from factory farms.

[ThomCat]

10. How few people actually hunt?

And of those few, how many of them live entirely on what they hunt.

This is a case of the exception that proves the rule.

[KurtNYC]

20. Upstate and in Canada there are a fair number

I knew kids who's parents had that extra freezer out in garage. Add fishing, wild turkey, moose, beaver, etc. and there is quite a bit out there that doesn't involve de-foresting.

As long as we are just envisioning a utopia, mine looks like a state park. Something like Oquaga Creek -- wild strawberries, raspberries, grape vines growing over the tops of trees with grapes as big as your thumb, wild turkeys running around. All those white lacy flowers that grow beside the highways upstate are carrots; the little yellow flowers are mustard plants. There is sour grass and dandelion greens. The world is one big salad bowl with plenty of meat sources that don't involve any farming or clearing of land.

[ThomCat]

22. I grew up in an area of upstate NY that was big on hunting.

I started hunting when I was 14 with my dad and brother. I also knew quite a few other hunters, obviously. We started fishing when we were much younger and had neighbors were hard-core fishermen. (traveling and bring home van-loads of fish repeatedly)

Whatever anyone got was spread out and shared with friends and neighbors. Everyone got about a half dozen meals out of it. But that certainly isn't the same as living off of hunting and fishing.

I never knew anyone who lived off of hunting/fishing for even a fraction of the year.

So, while this is a nifty ideal for ethical meat-eaters I take it with more than just a grain of salt.

[KurtNYC]

30. Millions of people hunt or fish

And just for sake of argument, how many people gather wild vegetables and grains to eat (as opposed to buying ones raised on farms where forests used to or could be)?

[ThomCat]

33. That's a straw man argument.

Nobody is talking about gathering wild plants.

And, yes, millions of people hunt and fish, but it's still very small fraction of our society, and the yield annual varies. And the typical yield isn't enough to support even one person for an entire year, much less an entire family.

We're long past the time where hunting/fishing can feed a family unless you live in a very unusual area and spend a lot of time hunting and fishing (as your full time job).

[KurtNYC]

40. All I am saying is that the overly broad generalization that

meat eating causes more deforestation than vegetable eating is not true with respect to hunted game. From the perspective of farmed beef versus farmed vegetables, the beef probably uses more land. But the general concept of meat eating does NOT entail farming or deforestation.

You, yourself, just admitted that there is no parallel to hunted game in the vegetarian world; eg. there is no gathering of natural grains/vegetables etc. While every ounce of wild game consumed in the US equals less deforestation.

And a couple of hours of hunting can yield 60 pounds of meat - enough to feed a family of 4 for 2 months.

[jpak]

35. I was at Springer Mountain Georgia one time (beginning of the AT)

This guy showed up with a backpack, a knife, a trowel, a camp stove and a copy of Edible Wild Plants of the United States - and no food whatsoever.

He SERIOUSLY thought he could forage his way all the way to Maine.

Anyone that has tried his or her hand at subsistence hunting/fishing/gathering in 20th or 21st Century America knows most people would rapidly starved to death in the endevour...

[ThomCat]

37. It was a joke in my office

that if we all got dropped in the woods with a rifle it would be me, the crippled, gay, vegan who would have to hunt, butcher and cook the food to feed the straight, healthy omnivores. For all the macho talk from my co-workers they couldn't survive a week out in the woods.

Despite that, I don't think anyone could do it for long. The idea of living on hunting and fishing sounds like an all-american thing to do, but I'm pretty sure it's a myth. I doubt more than a handful of people are living this way, and only by making it their entire life out in remote areas.

[jpak]

45. And then there was the fabled "Nature Boy" stunt

I wish I had the book here...can't google it up...

In the early 20th century, some guy from Maine pulled of a sensational survival stunt. He was dropped off "naked" into the woods and endeavored to survive using only his wits and woodcraft. He regularly left notes written on birch bark of his adventures (they were published in a Big City newspaper). He made clothes and shelters from cedar and birch bark. He killed a fawn with his bare hands and later a bear for food and clothing. As the Maine Warden Service sought to arrest him for hunting out of season, he high-tailed to Canada and surrendered to the Mounties., etc...

It was quite a sensation at the time.

Turns out someone later found his camp - littered with empty food tins and a few liquor bottles.

So much for Nature Boy...

:evilgrin:

[XemaSab]

57. Check yourself before you wreck yourself:

Some of those "white, lacy flowers" are poison hemlock.

[jpak]

18. It doesn't

But the number of people eating legally harvested venison is small compared the "meat and potatoe" crowd.

Example:

Maine has a total population of ~1.3 million and a hunter population of ~200,000 (based on annual hunting license sales).

Maine's annual deer kill is ~30,000 - a ~15% success ratio.

The number of successful deer hunters in Maine is ~2% of the state's population.

You get ~50 lbs of meat from a deer.

If a successful hunter consumed 1/4 pound per day, he could eat a venison meal for ~200 days.

So ~2% of Maine's population could consume venison for about half a year.

Again, insignificant compared the total population...

[KurtNYC]

24. Typical yield is 58 to 68 pounds

So 30,000 deer = 1.8 million pounds of meat and not one acre of deforestation.

[jpak]

29. Or enough to feed the entire State of Maine one venison meal for ~5 days

again, insignificant...

[KurtNYC]

32. I think the point stands - Meat eaters could live in a

non-deforested environment while the same caloric intake from vegetables and grain would require massive amounts of farmland and irrigation.

[ThomCat]

34. You're missing the issue of population density.

If you want to kill off a few hundred million people so that there are only a few people per square mile of land then maybe this would be an option.

[jpak]

39. Is this why native american populations from Maine to Mexico

practiced agriculture in the pre-European contact period????

(corn, squash and beans)

Could they support their populations without it????

Nope...

How 'bout them Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock????

Without indigenous agricultural practices they would not have survived.

period.

[KurtNYC]

43. The Inuits did not practice agriculture

(but they were north of Maine so you got me there).

I let this go earlier, but any exception disproves the theory. If the theory is that agriculture-based vegetarianism adulterates less land than ANY form of meat eating, then that theory is wrong.

[ThomCat]

44. "any exception disproves the theory"

Only in the hard sciences. We aren't talking about the laws of physical science.

In the social sciences there are always exceptions. But if those exceptions are extremely rare and not sustainable then the rule still stands. Again, it's the exception that proves the rule. The fact that something remains a rare exception proves that it cannot become the rule.

[jpak]

47. Also - it's hard to grow corn (or anything else) in the Arctic

or subarctic.

There might be a reason here why these groups did not practice agriculture.

(they couldn't, even if they wanted to...)

[XemaSab]

58. Not to mention

the EXTREMELY low population densities. I believe, lower than anywhere else in the New World by a longshot.

[KurtNYC]

52. I was talking about physical science - biology, environmental science, etc

The article linked at the top says animals "must be fed" 10 pounds of plants. That is an assertion and it is either true or not true as a scientific fact. Ignoring the ratio for the moment (btw 4.8 pounds of corn in one pound of beef), I'm simply saying there is a significant source of animal protein which is not being addressed by that assertion (1.8 million pounds/yr of deer in Maine alone). There are animals that walk around eating natural, organic vegetables. Never once eating GM corn or hybrid grains. Nothing that is irrigated or shipped or stored. Eating that deer involves the least agriculture, gasoline, water supply and waste. In order of least amount of agriculture used these three options rank like this:

1) wild game and fish
2) vegetarian or vegan food grown on farms
3) omnivore / commercial meat eater

The Inuits and Iroquois lived off the land for 5,000+ years without farming. So yes it is sustainable (maybe not for 6 billion people but we haven't established that 6 bil is a sustainable population). Agriculture necessitates fertilization and crop rotation. The current craze for olive oil is devastating european crop land.

[jpak]

46. The densities of historical Inuit populations were extremely low

They also practiced infanticide and exposure of the elderly.

Whereas modern Inuit still hunt - and hunting plays a central role in their culture - no modern Inuit population subsists entirely on hunting and gathering alone.

I spent time in the Arctic and have talked to Inuit hunters about their activities and life styles. They would no sooner give up their rifles, skidoos and outboard motors than they would their groceries.

And it's too bad Southern Meat Eaters are warming the planet and destroying their habitat and way of life...

:evilgrin:

[Recursion]

68. It's also based on the assumption...

...that all pasturable land is also arable for cereals and other staple crops. That's not true. Joel Salatin's book "You Can Farm" (which anyone interested in the viability of small farms should read) also points out several environmental advantages that healthy live stock raised in a humane fashion bring to a farm, from fertilization and aerating the soil to reducing several types of insect pests.

The trick is to find the sustainable mix and rotation between pasturage and planted fields; that's a solution that will very greatly by climate, terrain, size, water, and local stocks.

EDIT: in English, 's signifies the genitive while s signifies plural. I hate it when I use an apostrophe to simply signal that the next letter is s.

[Kali]

72. Salatin is an EXCELLENT example of what can be done

sustainably and truly ethically. Good example. Thankyou.

[Recursion]

75. Great guy

I've met him several times at different conferences. He's doing the kind of thing that we need a lot more of, and he really drives home the point that farming and ranching aren't just the production of food; there's a net gain to the environment as a whole if you do it right. Thanks to the Sun, farming is not zero-sum.

[longship]

11. I am with you, but only in spirit.

It's a good post and you make good points.

But I am and will most likely always be an omnivore.

I do try to be sensible about these things. I practice as good animal citizenship as I can, preferring meat raised honestly and as humanely as possible.

And although I've been aware of many of your points, it's nice to see them reinterated so those of us who do choose to be omnivorous can maybe learn to be more animal friendly.

[Kali]

17. thankyou

that was a very sensible response.

[jpak]

21. You don't have to completely give up meat to reduce

your environmental footprint.

Anymore than you have to give up your car...

Meat and Car Commute Monday

Meatless Tuesday

Carpool and Prince Spaghetti (cheese-only) Wednesday

Bus-to-work Thursday

Meatless Friday

BBQ Saturday

Car-less and BBQ Sunday

or any combo of the above.

:)

[flvegan]

27. Excellent post.

Taking up a vegetarian/vegan/raw diet (or just cutting back gradually on the meat one does eat at a comfortable pace) is akin to driving a sensible car (or taking public transportation, etc).

The "it tastes good" and "I want my meat" crowd are little different than the "I like my H2 crowd" but they just don't want to hear it. I understand that it's easier to buy into a more sensible mode of transportation, of course. But those that just shut it out (the idea of changing their diet)...I don't get it.

[XemaSab]

60. I'm going to come down in the middle here

I think there is a place in the environmentally friendly diet for meat eating, but not NEARLY on the scale most of us are used to.

I think a well managed deer herd is a good resource, as is a well managed pig herd, moose herd, and bird flocks.

I also think range cattle and other low-intensity deomestic animal operations can be a sensible thing for the land.

The supposition that "a meat eater requires two to four times more farmland than a vegetarian" implies that the beef (or whatever) is being "finished" in a CAFO. Most rangeland here in California would not be suitable farmland, and is SO taken over by weeds that if it wasn't grazed, it would just stagnate. If you took cows off the land, it would be a nasty fire hazard and the native plants in the area would be quickly choked out.

It took me a long time to come 'round to this way of thinking. I think range cattle can be a responsible way to eat, in moderation.

[IrateCitizen]

62. So, what vegetables do people in New England eat in January?

While I agree that the meat INDUSTRY is extremely wasteful and that people need to eat less meat, I don't think that vegetarianism is the answer. This article immediately made me think of something posted on EnergyBulletin.net a while back -- a couple of people tried to eat vegetarian AND subsist on a 100-mile diet. The result? They found it pretty much impossible.

I'm a big proponent of eating locally-grown organic food, and that includes both vegetables AND meat, in my eyes. Eating only vegetables during the winter months means that you are either having your food shipped an inordinately long distance (a big consumer of fossil fuels) or eating a poor diet.

[jpak]

64. In the 19th Century, there was a thriving hothouse produce industry

in the Boston area that supplied fresh veggies to city dwellers most of the year.

Most New England farms back then had root vegetables in the cold cellar and later, as home canning technology progressed, most rural households had a pantry full of mason jars filled with various summer harvested fruits and vegetables (and occasionally trout).

They also grew and harvested winter apples that ripened in cold cellars into the late winter and spring. One variety was nicknamed "The 4th of July apple" because it kept and ripened late into the spring and early summer.

Functional Foods just opened a 24 acre greenhouse in central Maine to produce tomatoes for the NE winter veggie market...it uses locally produced hydroelectricity and employs 300 people.

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=136238

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/2809156.shtml

They plan to expand it to 100 acres.

There are also several of organic farms in Maine that use waste wood (saw mill slabs) to heat greenhouses and "hoop-houses" (movable greenhouse shelters) to produce vegetables and salad greens for local markets and restaurants in the winter months.

So its more than just a little possible to have locally produced fresh (organic/renewable energy) veggies in New England all year round.

:)

[Nihil]

76. And in the 21st century ...?

> Most New England farms back then had root vegetables in the cold
> cellar and later, as home canning technology progressed, most rural
> households had a pantry full of mason jars filled with various summer
> harvested fruits and vegetables (and occasionally trout).

The argument provided against the "deer-hunter" example upthread was
based on i) modern man's capabilities, ii) population size and
iii) apples/oranges comparisons.

Exactly the same arguments apply here:

1) Most inhabitants of New England (and Old England for that matter)
lack the skill, knowledge & experience to be self-sufficient via
the canning/pickling/drying of vegetables & fruits (though I'll grant
that they may be able to manage the storage of nuts!).

2) The population of New England today is significantly larger than
that of the 19th Century. Doesn't matter what they eat, they will
eat a whole lot more of it than 150+ years ago.

3) No-one would question the ability of a vegetable farmer to survive
on their own (and neighbouring) crops and more than they would question
the ability of an experienced hunter to survive on their own in game
territory. This discussion is about the abilities of non-specialist
populations measured in millions.

As IrateCitizen said,
> Eating only vegetables during the winter months means that you are
> either having your food shipped an inordinately long distance (a big
> consumer of fossil fuels) or eating a poor diet.

For the majority of city-dwelling New Englanders, the above holds true.


Personally, I try to tread the middle line: We have one, sometimes two,
"veggie days" a week (not vegan as we get milk & cheese from local
farms and there would be a riot if I tried to stop that part of our
diet!). The meat is mainly organic (some is local, some is shipped
around) and the eggs are bought from a friend in the next village.
Fish is obviously an environmental disaster zone (source + transport)
but that's maybe one meal a week. Veg is a mixture of local produce
from the market and UK organic stuff from the supermarket. Fruit is
all "imported" except for the summer bounty from the bushes in the
garden.

What I remain aware of is that many of the above "environmentally
friendly diet choices" are precisely that - choices - and, moreover,
are luxury choices that I simply would not be able to afford if I
was still unemployed. There are loads of people who are better off
and so could eat as well as this if they can persuaded to do the same.

There are far more who simply can't afford it: they don't have local
farms, farm shops or even farmers/smallholders; they can't justify
paying a 30-50% premium for "local" organic food in the supermarket
compared to the "basic" (mass-produced, chemical-laden) product that
has been shipped from low-paid suppliers in a different continent.
The only veg & fruit that *they* could get hold of would be neither
environmentally-sound nor long-term nutritious.

What's the answer?

[KurtNYC]

66. "Vegetarian" includes grains, nuts and other things

which can be stored for a long time, often without refrigeration. Traditionally root vegetables have been a staple in the NE -- onions, potatoes, beets, etc.

[Recursion]

70. Preserved vegetables, and rhubarb

People have been fermenting and drying vegetables for millenia to last through the winter. Dairy also keeps well in some forms (notably butter and cheese, but raw milk in some conditions can keep over a winter, especially as clabber; it's only the pasteurized stuff that gets rancid so fast). Some vegetables have good winter crops; radish and rhubarb come to mind; beyond that they had their dried and fermented vegetables, fish, eggs, dairy, and some meat (though you would try not to slaughter during the winter).

[smoogatz]

69. Mass suicide would also be extremely beneficial to the environment--

once the short-term problem of all those decomposing bodies was eliminated (no pun intended) by various forms of non-herbivorous animal life. Oh, the irony!