observer Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Some eco quack is proposing that we all go vegetarian to save the planet - but if we didn't butcher the animals, they'd carry on farting - releasing gas into the atmosphere: and sprouts exactly anal retentive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 It's not just that. The land, water and other resources needed to rear meat are many times what you need to raise other food crops. I read somewhere that if all the land and water used now to rear beef cattle was turned over to Soya Beans, we could end world hunger, cos we'd have loads. If you think about it purely as a process, it's not very efficient to raise a crop you could eat, then feed it to an animal to produce a much smaller amount of food than the original crop provided. So if you want best use of resources, then it's logical that we all eat veggies. Not fun. Just logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 It is correct to say that meat production is highly inefficient in energy terms, and yes if all resources used to produce meat were turned over to cereals, vegetables and fruit we would be able to feed the world easily. I happen to think that as time goes by, we will eat less meat....and in the case of some people maybe they should eat less altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 I understand that if we were all to turn veggie all available land would have to be used to grow crops. However a lot of land that is used for pasture is unsuitable for growing crops. Also all the manure that is at present used for fertiliser would be lost. It isn't as simple as either or. And as for the increase in methane emissions.... it doesn't bear thinking about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 Worth noting that some of the cereal that we currently grow is fed to animals....that we then eat....in addition somebody had the not very bright idea to use cereal crops for bio fuels thereby raising food prices. With regards to methane, the cattle that we currently breed for meat will have been done away with, so methane should reduce. The real problem is our population, it is simply too great, coupled to which some of them just eat too much.... But as Asperity says, it is a conundrum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 28, 2009 Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 I'm not so sure about methane reducing. You know the old rhyme: Beans, beans are good for the heart The more you eat, the more you like them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2009 You can't just leave cows to stroll around everywhere, some might stray onto railway lines and cause an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 I understand that if we were all to turn veggie all available land would have to be used to grow crops. However a lot of land that is used for pasture is unsuitable for growing crops. Also all the manure that is at present used for fertiliser would be lost. It isn't as simple as either or. And as for the increase in methane emissions.... it doesn't bear thinking about Well that can't be true. A cow eats more than I do and we're currently growing enough crops to feed enough cows to feed all of us. Logically, we need less crop-growing land to feed ourselves directly and leave the pastures empty. And if you think about the number of people in the world, there's no reason to be short of fertiliser, is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 You have pointed to the problem LP, but with the wrong conclusion. Cattle are naturally designed to eat grass not grain. It's only the practice of feeding grain to cattle in order to fatten them which is the problem, not the cattle themselves. If they were only grass fed then of course there would be more grain for us to feed ourselves with, but also healthy cattle to provide good healthy beef. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 ...and a nice covering for a car seat...and settee....just have to make sure its field doesn't have barbed wire in...ruins the hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 29, 2009 Report Share Posted October 29, 2009 You have pointed to the problem LP, but with the wrong conclusion. Cattle are naturally designed to eat grass not grain. It's only the practice of feeding grain to cattle in order to fatten them which is the problem, not the cattle themselves. If they were only grass fed then of course there would be more grain for us to feed ourselves with, but also healthy cattle to provide good healthy beef. That's like those puzzles where you have to look twice to realise what's wrong with the picture..... animals are not an efficient way to produce food when compared to plants. Doesn't matter what you feed them, they use up more space, water, resources and food crops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Funny you should mention "space, water resources" etc: humans are the biggest users/consumers of same; so perhaps if we had less humans = less demand = less consumption = adequate supply. The four horsemen are trying their best, but todate, their best ain't been good enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Another problem with getting rid of livestock would be the end of milk, cheese, bacon and egg breakfasts. We wouldn't live longer, we would all die of boredom And if we aren't meant to eat meat, why are animals edible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 What! Get rid of the "full English" breakfast - sacrilege. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Another problem with getting rid of livestock would be the end of milk, cheese, bacon and egg breakfasts. We wouldn't live longer, we would all die of boredom And if we aren't meant to eat meat, why are animals edible? How does getting rid of beef cattle do away with dairy herds or egg-laying hens? Humans are equally edible Asp, but if you do that, nobody will come to your dinner parties..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I don't want to presume to tell you about the birds and the bees LP, but girl cattle can't reproduce without a little assistance from boy cattle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Errm, perhaps a dinner party LP, for Hannibal Lector?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 animals are not an efficient way to produce food when compared to plants. Doesn't matter what you feed them, they use up more space, water, resources and food crops. True, but both sheep and beef cattle are often grazed on wide expanses of marginal land which is completely unsuitable for growing food crops. There'd be little or no increase in the production of cereals or vegetables if this country's high moorlands or the Australian outback were to be cleared of sheep, or if the Argentine pampas and the Texas plains were cleared of cattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I don't want to presume to tell you about the birds and the bees LP, but girl cattle can't reproduce without a little assistance from boy cattle You don't say..... but beef cattle are not sexually mature bulls. Breeding stock is one bull per herd max and I'm sorry to say that most farmers get the job done by the vet with a syringe. Blokes merely donate one cell to the process - in any species. Not really worth mentioning. Research will soon make all of you obsolete except for pleasure purposes and the bulding of flat pack furniture..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 animals are not an efficient way to produce food when compared to plants. Doesn't matter what you feed them, they use up more space, water, resources and food crops. True, but both sheep and beef cattle are often grazed on wide expanses of marginal land which is completely unsuitable for growing food crops. There'd be little or no increase in the production of cereals or vegetables if this country's high moorlands or the Australian outback were to be cleared of sheep, or if the Argentine pampas and the Texas plains were cleared of cattle. Both the Pampas and the Texas plains are incredibly fertile areas and have strong agricultural sectors - largely supplying cattle fodder crops, ironically enough. There are dustbowl areas, but they've been created by cretins farming imported species of cattle instead of buffalo etc that caused no damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 The yields per acre they get from the fodder crops are tiny. And surely "cattle fodder crops" is just a synonym for grass - which will obviously grow well on grazing land. Fodder crops are generally grown in much drier conditions than vegetables or soya varieties. Food crops would be almost impossible without major irrigation and water import schemes - which is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. There would also be substantial transport costs for any food crops grown in either place because the big potential markets for them are a long way away and the land transport links are not good. They can only grow fodder crops economically on marginal land because of the low land values and the fact that the market for fodder crops is very local. I'd still also like to hear what crops could be economically grown in place of sheep on the high moors of Snowdonia or the Lake District. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 In any case I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to carry on being a meat eater. Why should I become a veggie on the say so of a load of self delusional haters of mankind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I like meat too - but I can see the eco/health fanantics banning it being eaten in enclosed public spaces! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Not enough meat on a veggie for a decent sunday dinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Meat creates half of all greenhouse gases Livestock causes far more climate damage than first thought, says a new report By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.