THE Energy & Meat Thread (merged)

[rangerone314]

If global warming is considered either moot or not a problem, then how about the 5,000 gallons water it takes to produce one pound of meat?

Or about 10 lbs of feed, like corn, to make a pound of meat?

Farting cows is one thing, but fresh water is an issue, and so is that fact that we are using so much land to feed animals.

[hardtootell-2]

If global warming is considered either moot or not a problem, then how about the 5,000 gallons water it takes to produce one pound of meat?

Or about 10 lbs of feed, like corn, to make a pound of meat?

Farting cows is one thing, but fresh water is an issue, and so is that fact that we are using so much land to feed animals.

While I agree that humans must either change their diet or reduce their numbers, there is something I must point out. I was having a resource depletion discussion recently with an arts graduate. She was under the impression that water was a single use substance. I know that most people on here are better informed but I wanted to point out that water is recycled and actually cleansed by the earth (within reason)

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

As far as industrial meat production is concerned, I think antibiotic resistance could take us out sooner even than global warming. We have been dancin with the devil on this one for a while now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic ... sk_factors

"Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, the impregnation of household items and children's toys with low levels of antibiotics, and the administration of antibiotics by mouth in livestock for growth promotion."

"Its like a doom buffet"<- Me

[mos6507]

If the cows were not eating soybeans how much less land would they require to be fed grass? I know the information is out there, but I haven't seen these sorts of comparisons. It seems to me that industrialized agriculture is driven in large part due to the need to minimize human labor, and having cows spread out in a pasture doesn't lend itself to that, such that cost would skyrocket for grass-fed dairy and beef. But I'd like to be pointed to some data if there is some. I know all about Salatin and his operation. I'm talking about the feasibility of scaling this out.

[hardtootell-2]

Mos

I don't think it matters that much what they are fed. Cattle, at least, are ruminants and they produce large quantities of methane (100l/day/cow) as a product of breaking down cellulose in their rumen.

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

Oh Oh- I may be getting off topic a little- "Dont taze me bro"

[dohboi]

There are, of course, other benefits to reducing your meat consumption:

The China Study

"The authors state that “as blood cholesterol levels in rural China rose in certain counties the incidence of “Western” diseases also increased. What made this so surprising was that Chinese levels were far lower than we had expected. The average level of blood cholesterol was only 127 mg/dl, which is almost 100 points less than the American average (215 mg/dl). ...Some counties had average levels as low as 94 mg/dl. …For two groups of about twenty-five women in the inner part of China, average blood cholesterol was at the amazingly low level of 80 mg/dl.”

The authors state that “several studies have now shown, in both experimental animals and in humans, that consuming animal-based protein increases blood cholesterol levels."

[Pretorian]

People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

here we go again...
less people eat meat==more crappy food;
more crappy food== more people;
more people == more peope eat meat

[davep]

The chap actually just said that people should eat less meat. He was on the radio after the Times article, saying the article was incorrect.

[jedrider]

The chap actually just said that people should eat less meat. He was on the radio after the Times article, saying the article was incorrect.

Well, sometimes people retract what they really meant to say. The article seemed to make a coherent point about our diet being a significant factor in global warming and what will have to be done about it.

I posted about the RAVE diet and finally finished the 110 minute video. Started out just trying to shed a few pounds and got hooked into curing heart disease and cancer and saving the world from 'meat'.

http://peakoil.com/psychology/the-r-a-v ... 55076.html

The last hour is about industrial farming that supports the industrial livestock industry and promotes deforestation the world over. So the message is save yourself, save the world, too. Eighty percent of grain goes to feeding our livestock.

Obviously, when resource depletion hits, our diets will revert to vegetarian. The ironic thing is that we'll probably be much better off, health wise.

Power down and de facto vegetarianism will go hand in hand. Not much chance people will embrace this overnight.

Electric cars and celery anyone? (I'm joking about the electric cars, though.)

[frankthetank]

Screw the planet , give up meat to save your life! Anyone seen Food Inc?

[jedrider]

Screw the planet , give up meat to save your life! Anyone seen Food Inc?

YouTube Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I

[dohboi]

And of course, there is always...

The Meatrix!

[jedrider]

And of course, there is always...

The Meatrix

That's adorable and I like the name.

The times when I go to Guatemala, sometimes we drive a great distance in order to eat, especially breakfast, at a family farm/restaurant. Everything is so incredibly delicious -- the milk, the butter, the oaks, the whole-wheat bread, the eggs, the honey -- I skipped the bacon, but I'm sure that was good too. Before or after breakfast we just roam the farm admiring all the animals.

[hardtootell-2]

And of course, there is always...

The Meatrix!

Yep, eating factory farmed meat is just another in the long line of cognitive dissonances that we and our society embraces. No wonder we are all half crazy!

[Pops]

Unfortunately, methane comes from gut flora digesting cellulose - the main carb in grass. The more starch (grain) fed as carb ration, the less methane is produced because cows can digest starch directly. Grain finishing also gives higher daily gain.

Aside from all the other problems with CAFOs it's probably safe to say they produce less warming than grass finishing mainly because methane is such a potent GHG. I've read of some research into developing more easily digested grass but not seen anything in a year or so...

[nocar]

Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”

This defense of the meat industry is strange in many ways, but I want to focus on the last sentence. Ruminants like cows, sheep and deer depend on a digestive system that produces methane. Pigs and chickens are not ruminants and do not necessarily emit methane, although perhaps the handling of their shit and urine in factory farms does.

How things change: a decade ago the dominant ecological view was that eating pork and chicken was worse than eating beef because this animals eat about the same kind of food as humans, while ruminants in contrast to people can digest grass. Should we turn to geese? They eat grass but are not ruminants. Fish are better protein converters than birds or mammals because they are cold-blooded and do not waste a lot of food energy in just keeping warm.

[dohboi]

"Fish are better protein converters than birds or mammals because they are cold-blooded and do not waste a lot of food energy in just keeping warm."

Perhaps, but if you have to chug out into the middle of the ocean to catch the fish, then haul them back in to shore and put them on an airplane for fresh fish meals in the midwest, you're still going to end up with a mighty high carbon footprint.

According to this excellent video (about half way through, as I recall) fish are very high impact indeed:

post peak

[Pops]

Really, there isn't any food that is going to feed 9 billion people with no impact on the environment.

Ausies are trying to figure out how to reduce the amount of methane producing bacteria in cattle. The problem is the methane bacteria reduce hydrogen in the gut which is important for some reason beyond my understanding.

http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/ ... estion.htm

[dohboi]

I wasn't aware that the Aussies were doing research into this, too. A few years ago, I heard that folks in New Zealand were trying to crack this nut, since sheep...off-gassing represents a significant portion of their contribution to GHG's (most of their electricity comes from hydro, I believe.)

No one is pretending that there are zero-impact ways of doing anything, but I do think it is important to have some idea of whether some activities (gastronomic or otherwise) have impacts multiple times greater than others that give comparable values (in nutrition, if not in pleasure or other hard-to-quantify areas).

[Pops]

Here in Missouri there is a large contingent of New Zealand Dairymen building grass based dairy farms - BIG farms, so I'm not surprised they are interested too.

[frankthetank]

Grass fed=omega3s (GOOD)
Grain fed =omega6s (too many BAD)

Big reason right there to make the switch. Our lack of omega3s in our diets right now can be linked to all kinds of ailments. Its the reason cold water fish our so healthy, along with flax and hemp.