|
 Post in Forums
Create a Profile
Upload Pictures
Make Polls
|
Keep a Journal
Meet Friends
Have Fun
It's FREE!
|
|
Sign Up!
|
|
|
Forum Index > News & Politics > Animal Rights | >> Meat creates half of all greenhouse gases | | |
|
fitzyp
Mega Über-Meister
3250 points
17/M/Auckland, New Zealand
Join Date: Nov 2008 | Marcussextus said:
No, it was too long ago that that particular equation was worked out, 20 years and more, I forget where I saw it. Common sense will show you that the vast percentage of land that is used to raise meat animals CAN NOT be used to grow crops, that's why it's devoted to animals in the first place.
Well I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure the land doesn't have to be particularly fertile to grow many types of nuts or soy beans.
And I believe that the land is devoted to growing meat because it is most profitable to do so.
Marcussextus said: Look around you, it's a simple fact of life. Intensive cropping, which would MOST DEFINITELY be needed to even attempt to replace meat would require far more land, water, chemicals etc, and produce far more by-products than the equivalent meat production. 
Can YOU demonstrate otherwise?
I disagree with this. From my admittedly primitive calculation Cattle farming takes on average 10 acres per cow and after two years it will produce 550kg of good meat. Giving it a yield of 28kgs per acre per year
In the same area approximately 120kgs of soy beans can be prodcuced
Considering beef has approximately 40 grams of protein per 100 grams compared to soy beans' 80 grams per hundred grams.
It ends up with soy beans producing 96 kgs of protein per acre per year compared with a cattles' 11kg
I'm sure better calculations must have been done somewhere but I can't find them and what I have done considers the most important factors at hand.
Add to it the fact that cows emissions result in "18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together " and there is a fairly compelling case. |  | |
|
Marcussextus
Über Master Debater
8557 points
55/M/Darwin, Australia
Join Date: Aug 2009 | Ftzzy, I don't know where you got your 10 acres per beast, that's ludicrous from where I sit. Here in Oz the meat areas are mostly desert, as they are in most of the big meat-production areas of the world. That figure is in the hundreds of acres in some places, and beasts per acre in others. Not to mention that the yield per beast is far in excess of your claimed 550kg,lol.
Nut crops etc can be grown in infertile or desert-like conditions, as long as you provide enough water and nutrients. Where are THEY going to come from? There is such a huge variety in soil, water, climate, yields, content etc etc that your figures on that are a speculation, a guess, and meaningless therefore, IMO. The production of the requisite nutrients MUST be factored in, along with the manufacture and supply of a means of delivery, harvest, handling etc etc, let alone the electricity and FUELS for all that!
Beasts look after themselves, and largely grow on the available environmental nutrients. Simplistically, Ya stick 'em out there, ya bring 'em in, and ya eat 'em! 
Oh, and not to forget that they reproduce themselves, you don't need to re-create the crop from scratch every year, with all THAT'S associated expense and labour. | | | | Edited: November 06, 2009 @ 09:53 |  |
|
|
fitzyp
Mega Über-Meister
3250 points
17/M/Auckland, New Zealand
Join Date: Nov 2008 | Marcussextus said:
Ftzzy, I don't know where you got your 10 acres per beast, that's ludicrous from where I sit.
I got estimations between 2 and 20 acres. I chose the middle even if I took the lowest value the yield would still be twice as good from soy beans.
Marcussextus said:
Here in Oz the meat areas are mostly desert, as they are in most of the big meat-production areas of the world.
Meat production requires grass to graze the cattle on. If the land is a desert, the area required to graze cattle will be huge.
Marcussextus said:
Not to mention that the yield per beast is far in excess of your claimed 550kg,lol.
You just alerted me to a grievous error in my calculations...
I forgot to change the yield from pounds to kilograms
It was actually a 500 lbs yield. Giving between 250 and 340 kg according to these sources:
link [attra.ncat.org]
link [www.agritech.org.nz]
Marcussextus said:
Nut crops etc can be grown in infertile or desert-like conditions, as long as you provide enough water and nutrients. Where are THEY going to come from?
Once again the cattle need something to graze on if it can't supply itself wil that then it can't be used for cattle farming. Besides areas used for cattle farming are mostly heavily irrigated already.
Besides these suggestions are mostly for South American areas where the soils can easily support soy beans.
Marcussextus said:
IMO. The production of the requisite nutrients MUST be factored in, along with the manufacture and supply of a means of delivery, harvest, handling etc etc, let alone the electricity and FUELS for all that!
I can't find anything suggesting that they require such requisite nutrients. And I don't see why ypu would think the manufacture and means of delivery etc would differ that much from beef cattle.
Besides all these emission are negligible to that of the beef cattle as said earlier.
Marcussextus said:Beasts look after themselves, and largely grow on the available environmental nutrients. Simplistically, Ya stick 'em out there, ya bring 'em in, and ya eat 'em!
Oh, and not to forget that they reproduce themselves, you don't need to re-create the crop from scratch every year, with all THAT'S associated expense and labour.
I mentioned nothing of expense cause that is not what is being debated here. The debate is on whether or not beeef cattle farming produces massive amount of greenhouse emissions and whether using the land for alternative productions would reduce the amount of emissions. | | | |
|
Marcussextus
Über Master Debater
8557 points
55/M/Darwin, Australia
Join Date: Aug 2009 | fitzyp said:
I got estimations between 2 and 20 acres. I chose the middle even if I took the lowest value the yield would still be twice as good from soy beans.
Meat production requires grass to graze the cattle on. If the land is a desert, the area required to graze cattle will be huge.
You just alerted me to a grievous error in my calculations...
I forgot to change the yield from pounds to kilograms
It was actually a 500 lbs yield. Giving between 250 and 340 kg according to these sources:
link [attra.ncat.org]
link [www.agritech.org.nz]
Once again the cattle need something to graze on if it can't supply itself wil that then it can't be used for cattle farming. Besides areas used for cattle farming are mostly heavily irrigated already.
Besides these suggestions are mostly for South American areas where the soils can easily support soy beans.
I can't find anything suggesting that they require such requisite nutrients. And I don't see why ypu would think the manufacture and means of delivery etc would differ that much from beef cattle.
Besides all these emission are negligible to that of the beef cattle as said earlier.
I mentioned nothing of expense cause that is not what is being debated here. The debate is on whether or not beeef cattle farming produces massive amount of greenhouse emissions and whether using the land for alternative productions would reduce the amount of emissions.
And you persist in using statistics that are irrelevant, out-dated, and barely apply to an Industry you obviously know little about. I come from farming stock, and the Land rules, despite what you may think.
I suggest that you do a LOT more research, and go out an garner a little real-life experience in the field, then you might have some concept of the reality, rather than relying on statistics, a very unreliable source of intelligence.
I see no further point in you and I pursuing this though, lets keep it simple, and pleasant. Thank you for the debate. 
I can agree to disagree, with respect, to you and your opinions on this. | | | | Edited: November 06, 2009 @ 12:08 | |
|
|
rogy
Mega Über-Meister
3110 points
52/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007 | Marcussextus said:
No, it was too long ago that that particular equation was worked out, 20 years and more, I forget where I saw it. Common sense will show you that the vast percentage of land that is used to raise meat animals CAN NOT be used to grow crops, that's why it's devoted to animals in the first place. Look around you, it's a simple fact of life. Intensive cropping, which would MOST DEFINITELY be needed to even attempt to replace meat would require far more land, water, chemicals etc, and produce far more by-products than the equivalent meat production.
Can YOU demonstrate otherwise?
I can demonstrate otherwise. We would need no more land - and probably less - than we use now because a great deal of what we grow at the moment goes to animals rather than humans or are cash crops.
link [www.mcl.unisonplus.net]
rogY | | | |
|
Marcussextus
Über Master Debater
8557 points
55/M/Darwin, Australia
Join Date: Aug 2009 | rogy said:
I can demonstrate otherwise. We would need no more land - and probably less - than we use now because a great deal of what we grow at the moment goes to animals rather than humans or are cash crops.
link [www.mcl.unisonplus.net]
rogY
From..."The fairies at the bottom of the garden publishing co pty ltd."
I hope you take no offence but that's hardly a reputable or reliable source
I read it, and checked the references given therein. They quote a magazine article, with no attribution or explanation of where or how they arrived at those figures, I mean to say, a 1/4 of the worlds land surface is devoted to meat animals? REALLY?
The rest were about methane, and there was a lot of indefensible assumptions and dubious statistics there too.
Sorry | | | |
|
fitzyp
Mega Über-Meister
3250 points
17/M/Auckland, New Zealand
Join Date: Nov 2008 | Marcussextus said:
And you persist in using statistics that are irrelevant, out-dated, and barely apply to an Industry you obviously know little about. I come from farming stock, and the Land rules, despite what you may think.
I suggest that you do a LOT more research, and go out an garner a little real-life experience in the field, then you might have some concept of the reality, rather than relying on statistics, a very unreliable source of intelligence.
I see no further point in you and I pursuing this though, lets keep it simple, and pleasant. Thank you for the debate.
I can agree to disagree, with respect, to you and your opinions on this.
For my final point, I would just like to say that there are 90% energy losses between trophic levels. | | | |
|
|
|
rogy
Mega Über-Meister
3110 points
52/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007 | Marcussextus said:
From..."The fairies at the bottom of the garden publishing co pty ltd."
I hope you take no offence but that's hardly a reputable or reliable source
I read it, and checked the references given therein. They quote a magazine article, with no attribution or explanation of where or how they arrived at those figures, I mean to say, a 1/4 of the worlds land surface is devoted to meat animals? REALLY?
The rest were about methane, and there was a lot of indefensible assumptions and dubious statistics there too.
Sorry
Hey, dat's a fine resource, thank you.
A better one would be John Robbins' book, Diet for a New America.
rogY | | | |
|
KAMPA
Mega Über-Meister
4498 points
109/M/, United States (general)
Join Date: Jul 2009 | SparklyKatie said:
So you're saying animals count for the same amount of gasses emitted from all the factories, power stations and volcano's on the planet put together?
Seems wrong to me
You did notice the connection with WORLD BANK? That explains a great deal!
"Stick close to your desks and never go to sea. And you all may be Rulers of the Queen's Navee!" W.S. Gilbert | | | |
|
rogy
Mega Über-Meister
3110 points
52/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007 | KAMPA said:
I doubt meat itself cause greenhouse gasses,animal farts may however!
One more time, it is not the back end of cows but the front end that is the main problem.
Cow burps are the real issue.
As for humans and their "gas," a good deal of that is created by the huge amount of lactose intolerance there is: link [en.wikipedia.org]
We are the only mammals never to wean ourselves and therefore steal the baby food of other animals for ourselves.
Crazy.
rogY | | | |
|
Mattuna
Über-General
447 points
20/M/Glocester, Rhode Island
Join Date: Nov 2009 | rogy said:
One more time, it is not the back end of cows but the front end that is the main problem.
Cow burps are the real issue.
As for humans and their "gas," a good deal of that is created by the huge amount of lactose intolerance there is: link [en.wikipedia.org]
We are the only mammals never to wean ourselves and therefore steal the baby food of other animals for ourselves.
Crazy.
rogY
mmmm i love stealing from babies its delicious i only drink milk i killed a baby cow to get at | | | |
Top
|
Nov 06, 2009 @ 09:01:37
