Animals raised for food cause more greenhouse gases than ...

[mwyalchen]

Have you taken into account the increase on fields needed to get enough plants that substitute the nutrients given by meat, dairy and all other animal-related products? and the damage that agriculture do to the lands?

Yes, I have. Quite simply, to get a given quantity of usable protein by passing plant stuffs through an animal takes three to five times as much useful material as eating it direct, depending on whether you're talking about chickens or cows. (This obviously does not apply to sheep on the hills eating grass; but then most of the cows and chickens we eat in the west are fed on grains and pulses.) Thus, crudely, we have a choice: a quantity of land A for vegetables and say a quantity 3B or 4B to sustain meat; or a quantity of land A for vegetables, and a quantity of land B for more vegetables...

Or maybe, slightly more than A + B; but I certainly can't see that a largely vegetable diet could ever require more land per person than a diet high in meat. After all, if you're getting your protein via an animal, inevitably what you get out is less in total than what you put in, even if it may be more concentrated or (to some minds) more palatable.

Which is very different from the common subsistance situation where the chicken and the pigs get the leftover scraps and the sheep or the goat is put out on land which can't otherwise be farmed. This is (i think) probably the most efficient of all in a temperate climate; though it wouldn't suit a veggie like me!

[Bracken]

Thanks for your answers to my question, chaps and chapesses.

[cursuswalker]

Have you taken into account the increase on fields needed to get enough plants that substitute the nutrients given by meat, dairy and all other animal-related products? and the damage that agriculture do to the lands?

Yes, I have. Quite simply, to get a given quantity of usable protein by passing plant stuffs through an animal takes three to five times as much useful material as eating it direct, depending on whether you're talking about chickens or cows. (This obviously does not apply to sheep on the hills eating grass; but then most of the cows and chickens we eat in the west are fed on grains and pulses.) Thus, crudely, we have a choice: a quantity of land A for vegetables and say a quantity 3B or 4B to sustain meat; or a quantity of land A for vegetables, and a quantity of land B for more vegetables...

Or maybe, slightly more than A + B; but I certainly can't see that a largely vegetable diet could ever require more land per person than a diet high in meat. After all, if you're getting your protein via an animal, inevitably what you get out is less in total than what you put in, even if it may be more concentrated or (to some minds) more palatable.

Which is very different from the common subsistance situation where the chicken and the pigs get the leftover scraps and the sheep or the goat is put out on land which can't otherwise be farmed. This is (i think) probably the most efficient of all in a temperate climate; though it wouldn't suit a veggie like me!

This all makes perfect sense. It is best to look at how land is used in a genuine subsistence economy. There is land that can be used for growing and land that cannot. The latter can still be used for livestock.

I think what has made this an issue is artificial situations such as the clearance of rain-forest for rearing cattle for burgers. THAT is insane and is rightly criticised. But to extend that to all livestock, as vegetarians often try to do, is simply a red herring.

[Aelfarh]

This all makes perfect sense. It is best to look at how land is used in a genuine subsistence economy. There is land that can be used for growing and land that cannot. The latter can still be used for livestock.

I think what has made this an issue is artificial situations such as the clearance of rain-forest for rearing cattle for burgers. THAT is insane and is rightly criticised. But to extend that to all livestock, as vegetarians often try to do, is simply a red herring.

Agree on that one 100%. Solutions are about getting a balance and intelligent use of livestock not eliminating that from our society. It's all about balance, we have to focus on realistic solutions, taking into account that we are by nature omnivores. But also, taking into account that livestock for some areas is the most efficient use of land, since there are lands that cannot support grains and other human-consumption vegetables but can support animal farming, and do not forget the damage to the lands that harvest make that is difficult if not impossible to reverse. For example, let's take the UK case, Arable and orchard farming occupy thirty percent while permanent meadow and pasture, which support food animals, covers fifty percent of the total area. If we all here became vegetarians, the mountains of Wales and Scotland would become largely unproductive, as would the moorlands of central and northern England, therefore the amount of imported food will need to increase by several times.

While we are on the subject of emissions what about the good old aeroplane which is in no doubt the biggest cause of them. There have been no real improvements since Whittle invented the jet engine

This just came to my mind today whilst I was reading that a new gas turbine is going to be on the market who achieve 7 ppm of NOx. Surely far from the old 40's ones.

[Hennie]

Somehow anytime anyone says "balance", I think "conservative". Guess I am a bit biased. What we need are some very radical changes in the near future; reducing meat production and consumption to lets say 25% of what it is now is one of the very necessary things we need to do. Stop flying in airplanes like idiots is another good one. Stop destroying woods is another very good one, we must as world community compensate the people who loose there income, not the giant industries, etc.etc.etc. We are no longer in a time, nor do we have the time, for endless debates and nuances; it is probably far too late, but if we want to try to preserve a bit of life on Earth, we better start acting; now.

[Kernos]

Wanna reduce food consumption by 25%? Reduce the human population by 25%. And that is 25% less CO2 breathed out by humans, and 25% less H2S farts.

IMO, human population is the major cause of global warming.

[Aylyn]

Wanna reduce food consumption by 25%? Reduce the human population by 25%. And that is 25% less CO2 breathed out by humans, and 25% less H2S farts.

IMO, human population is the major cause of global warming.

I think Hennie meant to reduce the meat consumption by 25%, which is certainly no hardship. Ans speaking of experience, I could probably do with a 25% reduction in general food , along with a lot of other folks.

But you are right, we humans are a major cause - just because there is so many of us, and our number increases daily. Just by doing normal things we are destroying the planet, like locusts who eat everything in sight. The only feasible solution is to reduce the number of humans. So why do we finance IVF and give incentives for more kids?

[Aelfarh]

I agree with both of you, we tend to be like a virus or a locusts. But on the other hand reproduction instinct is a very strong force...fertility has being a sound basis in all human history, I think we as followers of this path are more aware of that. And also there's the fact that in countries like this where there are more people with more than 60 than less than 18, well it became necessary to sustain the society. So...are we doomed as civilization really?

[Aylyn]

And also there's the fact that in countries like this where there are more people with more than 60 than less than 18, well it became necessary to sustain the society. So...are we doomed as civilization really?

Yeah, I get that all the time. But it is a general fact that it is only the white population that is shifting in demography. We still think compartementalized, not global - there are enough young people in the world, just not in the UK. But those are not wanted: Wrong religion, wrong nationality, wrong skin colour. We want WASP babies, or in Russia good Russian babies. And all nations/ tribes think like this, which is why we are doomed. As long as we do not understand and accept that humanity as a whole can only survive unless we give up our focus on our particular tribe/ religion/ country / whatever, we will not solve those problems.

[Aelfarh]

Totally agree Aylyn. The sad fact is that the territorial behaviour of mankind has not really change much from millennia, so there's still nationalisms, patriotisms, and in the worst form, xenophobia, that prevent that from happening. And on the other hand how can you solve the problem of the reproduction instinct? I mean is it right to impose measures to prevent people having more than 2 kids? and What kind of measures can be taken that work effectively ?

[Jarvisfamily4]

Reducing meat comsumption by 25% would mean increasing vegetable-calories by something like 30 - 35% (estimating here). Meat calories are packed with protein and fat: the most condenced forms of energy. Plants are high fiber, lots of 'waste'/non-digestable substance to them, and thus you must eat more to get the same caloric impact.
(obesity is another interesting aspect of this conversation: overconsumption of calorie-condenced foods, whether meat or processed foods... it's not the meat that's at fault, it's the overconsumption of all of it).

An interesting tid-bit: acre per acre, grazing land produces more calories of food than agricultural/vegetable ones. (This information coming from Barbara Kingsolver's book "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle")
Also note that the planet could not sustain an entirely vegetarian human population. Humans would need to eat SO MUCH more volume to get the necessary fat and calories from plant materials that the Earth could not produce enough.

A thought I had, getting back to the original topic of greenhouse gasses produced by animals: I wonder if a natural diet vs. an artifical diet has any relationship to the amount of gas produced? Do naturally pastured animals, likening the roaming herds of history, produce less methane gas than those being fed nutritionally altered, growth-inducing food that is not natural to them (cow food containing COW PARTS????) Anyone seen any research on this?

[cursuswalker]

Wanna reduce food consumption by 25%? Reduce the human population by 25%. And that is 25% less CO2 breathed out by humans, and 25% less H2S farts.

IMO, human population is the major cause of global warming.

The %age of CO2 breathed out by humans is negligible when compared to CO2 production by the entire biomass of 75 billion tons.

Humans comprise about 100 million tons

Compare this to:

Krill, about 500 million tons

Cattle, 156 million tons

Ants 900-9000 million tons

As all of the above produce CO2, it is reasonable to conclude that CO2 production is in proportion to size of biomass

The only benefit of such a reduction in Human population would be a reduction in CO2 output from human activity, which is the real issue.

[Kernos]

Wanna reduce food consumption by 25%? Reduce the human population by 25%. And that is 25% less CO2 breathed out by humans, and 25% less H2S farts.

IMO, human population is the major cause of global warming.

The %age of CO2 breathed out by humans is negligible when compared to CO2 production by the entire biomass of 75 billion tons.

I wasn't thinking about the CO2 breathes out, but about the carbon footprint of about 2x10^9 humans. Of course which humans are eliminated would make a big difference, eg. North Americans living in cities vs rural Chinese.