The Bovine Menace

PETA writes a letter to Al Gore regarding Global Warming:

In a letter to Al Gore, PETA nicely explained to him that the single best way for an individual to fight global warming is to become a vegetarian. In fact, according to the United Nations -- an organization that Al Gore is usually quite fond of citing: "raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world -- combined. That's not from PETA, that's from the U.N. (see the OP)! But it's not just them; university researchers have also determined that switching to a vegan diet has more of an impact on global warming than switching your car from a Camry to a Prius!

How can we ignore "The Bovine Menace" any longer?

http://blog.peta.org/archives/PETA's%20letter%20to%20Al%20Gore%20re%20Global%20Warming.pdf

Well... the benefits of a vegan diet must necessarily include less gas miles accrued in the shipping of the animals/animal secretions, so even before you consider the production itself, we'd be saving on the transport.

Beef need big trucks to ship in.

I'm a little disappointed in PETA's choice of food to help sway Mr. Gore: "since we're trying to persuade you not to eat fried chicken, here's a great alternative... fake fried chicken!" Pretty disingenuous if you ask me. I could make him something better.

Growing veg needs not only the ability to transport the produce around but also massive tractors, fertilizers, etc. to grow on the industrial scale to which we are accustomed.

The only difference with meat is the methane they extrude.

I thought it might get to this.

Hypothetically (because things never end up playing out this way), if all the animal production required for humans stopped and was replaced by plant based food, then wouldn't we save on shipping the vast amounts of soy and corn grown to feed animals?

In other words, we may not need add more to the production to replace, since the animals are already eating it, no?

the carbon offset by maintaining good soil practice and small scale sustainability should meet that created by various livestock.

similarly:

shut up about c02. it's basically the least of our worries.

thirdly:

meat production is a fully sustainable system locally and globally and i subject to stricter health/environmental guidelines than grains, fruits and vegetables.


envirovegans have ALOT to learn, especially when their antioxidant rich pomegranate juice and organic tomatoes come from thousands of miles away.


you can easily lessen your impact on the environment by reducing your meat intake. that's obvious.

but, as an environmental science student, biologist and proponent of sustainable agriculture, you don't need to be an idiot about it and do it for all the wrong, bloated reasons.

eating locally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eating only organically/vegan

of course, if you can maintain a vegan/veg diet AND eat locally, then you're even better off.

but frankly, that is just impossible in many (most) climates.

Hey rune... care to tone down the "shut ups" and "idiot". You can make your point without being so aggressive. In fact, I would say that if your goal is to convince someone of your opinion you are more likely to be successful if you frame your position in a manner that is more likely to be received in a positive frame of mind.

Lure more bees with honey and all that...

Just a thought.

I don't have time to look for the book right now, but I have a very small volume titled "Food for the Future." In the book, it very clearly goes into the environmental impact of raising meat, compared to the environmental impact of raising vegetables/grains/fruits.

There is no denying that livestock produce more greenhouse gas emissions in a year than the cars on the road in the United States. That says a lot.

But one thing to consider is that we often raise livestock and other animals on land that is not arable for crops. But we don't do it enough, and even when we are raising livestock on waste ground we are still creating pollutants via the cow itself--ie the methane gas it releases, and the fecal coliform that gets into streams because of field runoff. Fecal coliform is a nasty, nasty pollutant, and the majority of fecal coliform in watersheds can largely be attributed to cows and runoff, not humans. Fecal coliform leads to less dissolved oxygen in streams, which in turn leads to algae blooms, and dead fish. Yuck.

At any rate, the politics of food are very interesting and complex. Generally, when I eat meat, I attempt to eat meat outside of the industrial meat complex. But I really don't eat that much any more. And on Christmas, we're carpooling. We're also not going far. And most of the meal will be vegetarian--except for the prime rib, which I only eat once a year...on Christmas.

Greenhouse gas from short term carbon cycle =/ greenhouse gas from long term hydrocarbons burning.

First let me start by saying that i have not slept for.. a while. When this happens i tend to get silly.Aaaaaaaaand go:

Shove some tubes into the bums of the cows and be done with it. Yes! That's what we need! More tubes!!

Pros
CO2: Uh... more dry ice for everyone!!
CH4: Kinky source of natural gas.
N2O: Ustwo will be happy cuz the price of nitrous for his office will drop in price
Cows: Sexually satisfied


Cons

¿

I have a new theory about global warming:

Before about 150-200 years ago this continent (at least the central sections) were *packed full* of buffalo, right? Millions of them. Back then there were just a ton more animals around.. bears.. deer.. beavers... uh... bears? Anyway.. man came along and shot the faces off 99% of these animals and took their fur and sometimes the meat reducing the population of these creatures immensely (and in some cases completely.)

Now, obviously, these animals produced "fecal waste". We're talkin' millions upon millions of animals. Massive swarms of buffalo so big you couldn't really see where the swarm stopped.. all poopin' everywhere. One would think, seeing as how these things make such a huge impact on the environment, that taking out 99% of them would plunge this planet into a bit of a cold spell.

So I'm kinda thinking.. this HAD to have had some effect on the planet in terms of global warming. Perhaps the planet would be rapidly cooling right now if not for the industrial revolution saving us and keeping the planet warm. Have we taken it too far? Maybe.. we'll see.. won't we ;)

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7929/steakfz9.png

From my cold dead hands....

...just saying.

I'm afraid to trust you ObieX.
Are you now (or have you ever been) affiliated with Evil Steve Milloy (aka "evil Steve") or the hypno-toad?
This is kind of refreshing, independent, and rational thinking here...

Show them you care! ...go green this holiday season and give meat offsets as gifts!

the state of stark raving pseudo environmentalists is really disturbing for me.

what the hell is a meat credit carbon offset etc etc.





polluting by the act of consumption and and then going out and buying something which pollutes a little bit less does not negate anything. consumerism IS NOT an end to consumerism.

some guy somewhere is getting filthy rich off this "green" fad he's sold to everyone and he's only got jackasses like al gore, starbucks' fair trade movement and hybrid cars helping him.

In the future, only lawyers, dentists, and other rich folk will be able to eat this. The cost of beef will go through the roof like oil will. It will be a true luxury soon enough. There is only so much land, and so many people.


Ustwo.... you lucky, lucky man.

Beef is already costly here. Not a lot of room for grazing. All beef has to be imported from Australia. I rarely eat it anymore.

Soylent Green is a healthy alternative, I hear.

I love doom and gloom when its not based on reality.

We have genetically and hormonally enhanced beef already, creating greater and tasty yields per cow.

Try driving from NY to CA, most of the land is empty and fine for grazing. The US is not very heavily populated. The true agricultural potential of the US hasn't been unleashed, mostly because its not profitable to do so at this time .

Prices will go up, ethanol fuel is already starting it (grain to feed cars doesn't feed cattle), but I don't foresee it becoming a rich mans food.

This is not doom nor gloom; it's beef prices. But the reality is another thing.

Yes, and I heard they are lead by the illustrious Diseazus: King of the Funky Beef.

I believe the U.S. is not currently using around 15% of its total land (land that is arable). But it will soon be profitable to grow corn for ethanol as you state here:
Do you know how much of this land is being eyed up for cornfields? And it isn't just the land, other economic factors are at play. Also, as the U.S. population increases, the amount of its arable land decreases. This means food demand is increasing, while the finite capacity to produce it locally is decreasing. America isn't known for being smart about building its urban areas. Sprawl is an issue that will eat up this valuable food-producing land. Farmland is being paved over with urban areas all the time. You can't do this indefinitely, and you cannot expect it won't affect food supply and prices.

Solid gold.

I'll make you a deal. If what you say is true I'll buy you a steak dinner in 5 years.

Really you have your prediction, I have mine, as long as we keep the socialists out of power I'll put the money behind mine.

Now if the socialists get in power prices will go through the roof and production will go down but thats another matter.

Stable, large profit margin, lots of money invested. Not going anywhere.

US beef sector, pinched by costs, cuts production:

Consulting firm HedgersEdge.com said U.S. beef companies, on average, are losing about $45 on every head of cattle they slaughter. With daily slaughter ranging from 125,000 to 130,000 head, that equates to losses of $5.6 million to $5.8 million a day for the industry....

Margins are slim "because beef is at a high price and is having a tough time competing with pork and poultry," said [analyst Don Roose at U.S. Commodities Inc.].

Not so stable, not so profitable. Much of this is a temporary market fluctuation, I'm sure, but if you look at the long-term view, it's going to be difficult to keep beef prices stable overall.

Meat prices set to soar as production costs mount: analyst:

Wheat prices reached an unprecedented peak of $7.44 U.S. a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade market last week after climbing steadily for months.

Poor weather in wheat-producing regions of Canada and Europe has contributed to the price increase. In addition, more wheat and oilseed crops are being used to produce biofuels.

"Supply has fallen and at the same time demand has risen," Crane said. "We have obviously more people in the world eating more meat which takes up more of the grain. Interestingly in the last year we've really seen the growth of biofuels — more grain that's being grown is going into the fuel market.

Crane said consumers can expect to see an inflation in food prices comparable to the gradual but steady rise in oil prices.

"At the end of the day food prices will have to rise and in different countries they'll rise at different rates. I think it's a little bit like the way oil prices move and that just moved up a significant level over the last two or three years," Crane said.

This isn't an isolated problem. Our economies are globalized; we're in this together.

But, fair enough. We'll keep the socialists out of power, so long as they get their representational power. It would be good to keep things balanced in an unstable global market. I'm not sure I'd win that steak in 5 years, as I think this is a long-term thing. Maybe give me 10 or 15 years.

I prefer sirloin.

But you do realize in that link you posted, the problem is we are producing MORE beef than there is demand for, hardly a recipe for a disaster down the road price wise.

The original concept was that we wouldn't have enough, but now we have too much.

Well in 20 years global warming will have killed us all or something, so you got a better chance of collecting in 5 :thumbsup:

And while I never was a tenderloin fan, now that I've had steaks expertly prepared, I've switched to that as the 'ideal', though I still love a good t-bone.

Yes, I do realize the capacity issue. But look at the big picture. The land is finite and ethanol for energy is on the horizon. You have many people from Europe, Asia, and especially the Americas immigrating to your country, which will lead to more urban sprawl.

Within 20 years, America's arable land distribution of hectares per capita dropped from 0.83 to 0.64. (As a comparison, Canada's is 1.51 and China's and the U.K.'s is 0.10.) The difference between being a big grain exporter and a necessary big grain importer can be signified by this bit of data. At a time when arable land use is beginning to be used for non-food purposes (e.g. ethanol), this capacity is far more reduced than it seems.

With reduced capacity or possibility for expansion (not to mention rising feed and energy prices), there are fewer low-cost alternatives to market fluctuations. What the first article of my last post pointed out is that meat consumers are going for cheaper forms of meat (i.e. pork and chicken). This reduces the overall demand on beef, which is continuing to hurt the prices and is why you see the need to cut production. As grain prices continue to rise in light of limited overall global capacity and high demand, the cost of producing beef will remain high and will continue to increase out of step with other sources of food.

The cost of beef production is high compared to chicken, which many consumers are turning to (away from beef) not only because of price, but health reasons as well. The questionable demand for beef in addition to the pressures of capacity and the cost of production (i.e. grain and transport) will only put a further squeeze on beef prices.

Who needs beef, when there is Bison meat to be eaten;) The stuff is amazing for you, (better than fish or chicken) and has none of the adverse health effects of regular beef. And it tastes better.

I'll give you healthier but not taste. Fat is a big part of why meat tastes as good as it does. Lean meats often need to have fat added to make them not taste like health food.

Have you had bison?

Taste is subjective. Venison is delicious right-off-the-critter and they're not very fatty either.

Yes wasn't impressed, maybe it was preparation but I've also read that with bison it can be a problem.

True enough.

Dude, I just received some good 'ol homemade venison sausage from the in-laws out West. It came with some pork sausage, too. Damn, I'm low on sauerkraut.

Ustwo, I would guess it was the preparation. One can easily mess up a good cut of beef, even. With bison, I've only had it as a steak once and a burger once, both of which were quite delicious (i.e. better than a lot of beef I've had).

There will always, within our lifetimes, be land that can't be used for grain/corn mass production. Be it the actual landforms that limit the use of modern machine implements, or the indigenous soil that simply can't grow or sustain such crops. As result, there should be production of animals that can use this land; browsers and grazers such as cattle and sheep and bison.

Cattle in a feedlot can be and are fed 'hay' which is the most sustainable natural-grass type large scale crop. Yes, currently most american feedlots use almost entirely corn and grain (and soy), but as demand for such crops are drawn elsewhere, cattle have alternatives and can be raised pasture style on otherwise unproductive land or fed more hay. Chicken and pigs are not as adaptable.

I eat more beef than I really should, and honestly believe that the best in the world is produced locally. I've had my share of bison, also local, which is no more difficult to prepare as long as you acknowledge that you aren't cooking with beef.

bison is delicious

Wow, 3? That's it? Really? Interesting...

As for Michael Crichton... While State of Fear is obviously a fictional work, it is also well referenced throughout. The references are not fictional. Also, if you look at the history of the planet, what's happening now really ISN'T any different than what has happened at regular intervals for as long as we can look back. *shrug*

Frankly, I think GW is bullshit. I also think that eating more meat will not, effectively, cause the temperature to go up. In fact, the Greenhouse Effect itself isn't very well proven. Even GW supporters often admit there is reasonable evidence that greenhouse gases may DECREASE global temperature over time. Hmmm, odd...

What about the ramifications of poorly prepared meat?

Take my mother, she liked her meat WELL done, so guess what I thought was the way it was suppose to taste growing up? I weep to think what she did to so many fine cuts of meat.

*drool*

Does anyone know where I can get venison or bison meat (like sausages or cuts) in southern California (short of hunting which has a lot of restrictions here). Baraka, send me some of those sausages and I will send you some warm and sunny California air.