Would You Turn Vegetarian to Slow Global Warming?

[HAL 9000 96]

no. me love me some meat. nom nom nom.

Imagine South Americans giving red meat up. Then again South Americans aren't much to blame for much of the GW issue.

It would be a drastic solution that may end up being forced on a future generation anyway due to decreased arable land. Yeah, that's right. Moving north with farms and ranches won't yield much arable land due to that land not being properly progressed for that kind of use.

Hopefully policy will follow the voice of reason on this and stem the major causative factors first so the catastrophic changes already in commencement won't hit our grandkids too hard.

Its all about government control... nothing more.

One day it might have to be.

Won't it suck if it turns out to be on a 'conservative' government's watch?

You watch too much V for vendetta. Yes movies predict the future...

Wrong thread son.

[Rhiannercakes 14]

Naw, I love my beef and nothing can replace that for me.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I don't think many people understand farming. For instance, it's impossible to make a real wage in farming (without some form of government subsidy and you can't get rich), but it's possible to get incredibly rich in food manufacturing. Where is the sense in that?

I know a couple corn farmers who make a $^#^ ton of money. Not to mention a lot of them pay cash for those $450,000 to $1,000,000 combines and tractors. John Deere and Harvester's ain't cheap. Field of Dreams is not an accurate adaptation of corn farming.

[SMR 368]

I don't eat that much meat - mainly fish. But because of GW.

IMO there are more environmental problems related to intensive agriculture in regards to cereal crops.

Anybody who has driven across the US knows the truth about agriculture, at least in America. Beef cattle are raised in areas that are too dry and infertile to support efficient plant crops. These areas aren't watered.

The real issue becomes the crops that we are growing in the more fertile areas and the amount of water that they consume. Fruit farming takes the most water. Fruit is something that we all need. Cereal crops, potatoes, and vegetables for human consumption are grown in slightly less fertile areas and take somewhat less water.

However, if you think that meat consumption can or should be reduced by increasing grain, vegetable, and fruit consumption, you need to check the food pyramid. The real issue are fields that cover most of the Midwest. These fields grow alternately soy beans and feed corn. These crops require complementary nutrient content and so the rotation allows farmers to avoid fallow years.

The feed corn is used to feed the cattle during the parts of the year when Wyoming and Texas don't grow grass naturally. While you could stop growing the feed corn, that wouldn't allow you to grow more soy beans or other meat substitutes.

While it's true that a calorie of grain creates less green-house gas than a calorie of beef, it's important to remember that a balanced diet actually requires protein. Furthermore, farm animals often use natural resources that we couldn't use to create edible plant foods (Wyoming).

I'm not suggesting that we should be eating 3 burgers a day with steaks on the weekend. But eating eggs, dairy products, and occasional red or white meat isn't really hammering the environment like PETA would like you to think that it is.

The attached article goes over some of this.

http://www.slate.com/id/2176420/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't eat that much meat - mainly fish. But because of GW.

IMO there are more environmental problems related to intensive agriculture in regards to cereal crops.

Anybody who has driven across the US knows the truth about agriculture, at least in America. Beef cattle are raised in areas that are too dry and infertile to support efficient plant crops. These areas aren't watered.

The real issue becomes the crops that we are growing in the more fertile areas and the amount of water that they consume. Fruit farming takes the most water. Fruit is something that we all need. Cereal crops, potatoes, and vegetables for human consumption are grown in slightly less fertile areas and take somewhat less water.

However, if you think that meat consumption can or should be reduced by increasing grain, vegetable, and fruit consumption, you need to check the food pyramid. The real issue are fields that cover most of the Midwest. These fields grow alternately soy beans and feed corn. These crops require complementary nutrient content and so the rotation allows farmers to avoid fallow years.

The feed corn is used to feed the cattle during the parts of the year when Wyoming and Texas don't grow grass naturally. While you could stop growing the feed corn, that wouldn't allow you to grow more soy beans or other meat substitutes.

While it's true that a calorie of grain creates less green-house gas than a calorie of beef, it's important to remember that a balanced diet actually requires protein. Furthermore, farm animals often use natural resources that we couldn't use to create edible plant foods (Wyoming).

I'm not suggesting that we should be eating 3 burgers a day with steaks on the weekend. But eating eggs, dairy products, and occasional red or white meat isn't really hammering the environment like PETA would like you to think that it is.

The attached article goes over some of this.

http://www.slate.com/id/2176420/

I'm talking about intensive agriculture stripping the nutrients out of the soil and causing desertification - that's something that can and does happen.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think many people understand farming. For instance, it's impossible to make a real wage in farming (without some form of government subsidy and you can't get rich), but it's possible to get incredibly rich in food manufacturing. Where is the sense in that?

I know a couple corn farmers who make a $^#^ ton of money. Not to mention a lot of them pay cash for those $450,000 to $1,000,000 combines and tractors. John Deere and Harvester's ain't cheap. Field of Dreams is not an accurate adaptation of corn farming.

I don't know what Field of Dreams is, that is not where I source my information. Your 'corn farming mates', what is their current government subsidy level?

[Twisted K 2]

uh, nope.

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't eat that much meat - mainly fish. But because of GW.

IMO there are more environmental problems related to intensive agriculture in regards to cereal crops.

Anybody who has driven across the US knows the truth about agriculture, at least in America. Beef cattle are raised in areas that are too dry and infertile to support efficient plant crops. These areas aren't watered.

The real issue becomes the crops that we are growing in the more fertile areas and the amount of water that they consume. Fruit farming takes the most water. Fruit is something that we all need. Cereal crops, potatoes, and vegetables for human consumption are grown in slightly less fertile areas and take somewhat less water.

However, if you think that meat consumption can or should be reduced by increasing grain, vegetable, and fruit consumption, you need to check the food pyramid. The real issue are fields that cover most of the Midwest. These fields grow alternately soy beans and feed corn. These crops require complementary nutrient content and so the rotation allows farmers to avoid fallow years.

The feed corn is used to feed the cattle during the parts of the year when Wyoming and Texas don't grow grass naturally. While you could stop growing the feed corn, that wouldn't allow you to grow more soy beans or other meat substitutes.

While it's true that a calorie of grain creates less green-house gas than a calorie of beef, it's important to remember that a balanced diet actually requires protein. Furthermore, farm animals often use natural resources that we couldn't use to create edible plant foods (Wyoming).

I'm not suggesting that we should be eating 3 burgers a day with steaks on the weekend. But eating eggs, dairy products, and occasional red or white meat isn't really hammering the environment like PETA would like you to think that it is.

The attached article goes over some of this.

http://www.slate.com/id/2176420/

Very nice post.

[SMR 368]

I don't think many people understand farming. For instance, it's impossible to make a real wage in farming (without some form of government subsidy and you can't get rich), but it's possible to get incredibly rich in food manufacturing. Where is the sense in that?

This is only true because government subsidies exist. If the government didn't subsidize farmers, people would still have to eat. The farmers would just charge more for the food. But in the end, food wouldn't be more expensive. It's just that we would pay the food bill at the grocery store instead of having part of the food bill withheld from our paycheck.

As it is now, you pay X dollars in taxes, to support farmers. The government takes Z of those dollars in overhead and never gives them to the farmers. Then you pay Y dollars for food at the grocery store. Just get rid of the middle man. Pay Y+X dollars at the grocery store and keep the Z dollars.

I realize that this change would be very difficult to make at this point in time, but that is just because the government has created this situation. I'm just making the point that the government hand in everything isn't actually helping.

[Peikko 1,575]

You think I am in favour of government farming subsidies?

[Ban Hammer 14,170]

I don't think many people understand farming. For instance, it's impossible to make a real wage in farming (without some form of government subsidy and you can't get rich), but it's possible to get incredibly rich in food manufacturing. Where is the sense in that?

I know a couple corn farmers who make a $^#^ ton of money. Not to mention a lot of them pay cash for those $450,000 to $1,000,000 combines and tractors. John Deere and Harvester's ain't cheap. Field of Dreams is not an accurate adaptation of corn farming.

I don't know what Field of Dreams is, that is not where I source my information. Your 'corn farming mates', what is their current government subsidy level?

a movie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_Dreams

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The EU Common agricultural policy has a lot to do with overproduction, waste and underutilisation of farm land in Europe.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Has anyone here read The Omnivore's Dilemma? If not, I'd suggest picking it up. It explains, in detail, the long term effects of mass production farming (in reference to meat and the overproduction of corn) and how the living conditions for cows are horrendous. They often stand in areas with little-to-no room and are surrounded by their own feces. Eventually these cows acquire an infection or two, so antibiotics are given -- which apparently get absorbed into the cow's meat and can trickle down into those who eat the cow later on. The cows are also given growth hormones which adversely affect them.

Sustainable farming, that which allows cows a pasture to room and eat on, produce healthier animals and therefore, better quality meat. The real problem isn't the expense (most farmers wouldn't need government subsidies if they worked this way), but the time and effort. Penning cows up is an easier solution for the farmer.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Has anyone here read The Omnivore's Dilemma? If not, I'd suggest picking it up. It explains, in detail, the long term effects of mass production farming (in reference to meat and the overproduction of corn) and how the living conditions for cows are horrendous. They often stand in areas with little-to-no room and are surrounded by their own feces. Eventually these cows acquire an infection or two, so antibiotics are given -- which apparently get absorbed into the cow's meat and can trickle down into those who eat the cow later on. The cows are also given growth hormones which adversely affect them.

Sustainable farming, that which allows cows a pasture to room and eat on, produce healthier animals and therefore, better quality meat. The real problem isn't the expense (most farmers wouldn't need government subsidies if they worked this way), but the time and effort. Penning cows up is an easier solution for the farmer.

Its about getting the most production value out of each square foot of land. Very scientific, but ethically questionable.

[HAL 9000 96]

If you build it... he will come. LOL