Cows and Climate Change -- Time To Get Real

[deonb]

Cows convert grain to meat with an efficiency of about 3%. This is even less efficient than the HFC.

This is the second time you're throwing that number out.

You're going to have to site your source now, because not even Google wants to have anything to do with your 3%. The general FCR range for cattle, depending on how you do it, is 2.5 to 7.

3% would mean an FCR of 33.

 

[Topher]

Cows convert grain to meat with an efficiency of about 3%. This is even less efficient than the HFC.

Cows also convert grain to methane, and grain to fertilizer,...

Thank you kindly.

 

[mspohr]

.

I take it this is you apologizing for:

Wildlife isn't as manageable, which is a requirement at this point for any solution, but if you have a real plan to do that, go for it. I prefer Bison and Kudu to Beef anyway.

My diagnosis of "crackpot" was based on science (the lack of scientific evidence for his theories).
Yes, wildlife is not manageable. That is the point. We should return the land devoted to industrial meat production to wildlife and leave the wildlife alone. Don't try to eat the wildlife. Eat vegetables. It's better and healthier for you and the environment.

 

[Topher]

Wildlife isn't as manageable, which is a requirement at this point for any solution, but if you have a real plan to do that, go for it. I prefer Bison and Kudu to Beef anyway.

Plenty of Bison farms around, not that hard. There are even deer farms around here. The trickier parts like cell grazing, one should really be doing with cattle as well. Take out all the stupid parts, and there really isn't any difference between cattle and bison. And the meat is better for you, and tasty as well.

Thank you kindly.

 

[deonb]

We should return the land devoted to industrial meat production to wildlife and leave the wildlife alone. Don't try to eat the wildlife. Eat vegetables.

Why stop at land devoted to meat production? Why not also return roads, bridges, dams and buildings?

But ok, ok, if you're really concerned about the land for meat production, I take it if we build buildings the size of the Burf Kalifa, and stick 100'000 cows in it all on top of each other, and feed them GMO super-yields crops, that you'd be ok with that?

It's better and healthier for you and the environment.

Are you sacrificing everything to be environmentally conscious? You are of course biking and walking everywhere, or if this is not an option, you take public transportation. Or are you just using the best technology available to you right now, using the best science as we understand it right now, to maintain your standard of living but minimize the environmental impact you have?

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I don't judge you for that. But I do ask that you then don't judge others who also try to maintain their standard of living, using the best technology and science available.

 

[mspohr]

I remembered this from the "Diet for a Small Planet" from many years ago.
Google search today shows 5 to 20 from Wikipedia:
Feed conversion ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article explores some of the complexities of coming up with an exact number:
On average, how many pounds of corn make one pound of beef? Assuming an all-grain diet from backgrounding through to 1,250-pound slaughter weight, I have heard estimates ranging from 6 pounds corn/1 pound beef to 20 pounds corn/1 pound beef. Can you clarify? - eXtension

 

[jgs]

DfaSP was an influential book but a lot of the science in it is no longer considered current (I was going to write "discredited" but that would be unfair – Lappé was working with the best science she had at the time). For example, the stuff about protein complimentarity is also no longer considered accurate.

 

[ggr]

I'd like to request retroevolved Moa.

Tastes like chicken.

 

[Chris TX]

Nice graph of methane emissions. Manure and enteric fermentation together are 30% of methane which agrees with other sources. Of course, there is much more to climate damage than methane, notably CO2. Large scale industrial meat production has significant CO2 production from fertilizers, loss of natural grasses, farming machinery, processing and transport. All of these effects together mean that industrial meat production contributes more to climate change than burning fossil fuels for transportation.
The conclusion of any rational person should be to stop eating meat since you can have an immediate beneficial impact on the environment at no cost and as a bonus gain health benefits (reduced cardiovascular disease and cancer).

Don't forget one of the largest sources of methane in the world is wetlands. That graph just shows methane caused by man. Here's a map of some of America's wetlands that produce massive amounts of methane. Are you saying we should just get rid of Florida? (I'm fine with that )

As it stands right now, these wetlands are in danger of becoming "non-wetlands" so man can build things on. That means less wetlands to produce methane.

 

[SageBrush]

For example, the stuff about protein complimentarity is also no longer considered accurate.

It remains accurate, but the need has been deprecated (in the Western world, at least) by a varied diet, tendency to overeat, and food every couple hours. It is true though that the ability of the body to hang on to amino acids for protein synthesis is longer than once thought.

 

[SageBrush]

I'd like to request retroevolved Moa.

I don't know what that is, but I have thought for a long time that meat eaters should feast on their families too.

Logical, consistent, and socially darwinistic.

 

[SageBrush]

Are you saying we should just get rid of Florida?

That is same poor reasoning trotted out by AGW denialists: that the natural CO2 cycle somehow blesses the human production.

And truly, if a large cattle population was the only pertubation of the CO2 cycle caused by human, I imagine the Earth would manage pretty well. But it is not, and humanity is no where close to budgeting CO2 at a reasonable level, so all GHG inputs have to be examined and reduced if not eliminated.

 

[mspohr]

Don't forget one of the largest sources of methane in the world is wetlands. That graph just shows methane caused by man. Here's a map of some of America's wetlands that produce massive amounts of methane. Are you saying we should just get rid of Florida? (I'm fine with that )

As it stands right now, these wetlands are in danger of becoming "non-wetlands" so man can build things on. That means less wetlands to produce methane.

There are lots of natural sources of methane that we can't control.
However, we can reduce the methane from industrial meat production (by just not doing it).

 

[SageBrush]

Why stop at land devoted to meat production? Why not also return roads, bridges, dams and buildings?

Why do anything at all ?

If all else fails, we can always blame immigrants, dark skinned people and women

 

[Skotty]

I don't buy that eating vegetables is healthier. I'll buy that it's less impact on the environment, and eliminates the issue with the humane treatment of animals. Both valid concerns. But we are natural omnivores, and the body generally does a good job of requesting what it needs through hunger and cravings. We do have an overeating problem due to how successful humanity has been at agriculture in the last 100 years (we have a strong desire to eat which is not currently balanced due to the greatly decreased difficulty in obtaining food -- this is a problem, but it's one of those good problems to have). But I don't believe it is unhealthy to eat meat, if eaten in moderation. In fact, although it is anecdotal, the few vegetarians I know all end up having digestive or other eating problems eventually. This tells me it is probably much harder to give the body everything it needs without eating meat.

BTW, I am on board with eating lab grown protein, if we ever get to that level of expertise in manufacturing food.

 

[SageBrush]

But we are natural omnivores

More accurately, humans are natural scavengers. They don't live long that way, and eating left over bones is not a choice I care to make.

The omnivore argument has always been poor reasoning. Our ability to digest animals rather than starve does not make animal eating superior to other choices when available.

 

[Chris TX]

More accurately, humans are natural scavengers. They don't live long that way, and eating left over bones is not a choice I care to make.

The omnivore argument has always been poor reasoning. Our ability to digest animals rather than starve does not make animal eating superior to other choices when available.

So how is it our bodies are dependent on several specific products of eating meat? B12? DHA? Sure, we can kid ourselves all we want with B12 shots, DHA pills, and other supplements but simply eating natural meat full of these building blocks would make more sense.

The purpose of this thread is to talk about methane emissions and their impact to the globe. When you look at the massive amounts of natural sources of methane, and the addition of man-caused methane emissions, "factory farming" of livestock is a tiny piece of the picture. Why aren't we protesting landfills that don't capture methane? Natural gas wells that blast millions of cubic feet of methane per day, wasted?

Sure, feel free to say "I think eating meat is bad, because of souls and feelings and stuff" but to say "Let's attack global warming by focusing on raising livestock, because it produces soooo much methane!" is ludicrous.

I drive an electric car that's powered by wind, natural gas, and nuclear power. I'm doing my part. Who's up for some burgers and beer? I'm buying!

 

[mspohr]

So how is it our bodies are dependent on several specific products of eating meat? B12? DHA? Sure, we can kid ourselves all we want with B12 shots, DHA pills, and other supplements but simply eating natural meat full of these building blocks would make more sense.

The purpose of this thread is to talk about methane emissions and their impact to the globe. When you look at the massive amounts of natural sources of methane, and the addition of man-caused methane emissions, "factory farming" of livestock is a tiny piece of the picture. Why aren't we protesting landfills that don't capture methane? Natural gas wells that blast millions of cubic feet of methane per day, wasted?

Sure, feel free to say "I think eating meat is bad, because of souls and feelings and stuff" but to say "Let's attack global warming by focusing on raising livestock, because it produces soooo much methane!" is ludicrous.

I drive an electric car that's powered by wind, natural gas, and nuclear power. I'm doing my part. Who's up for some burgers and beer? I'm buying!

This thread started as a discussion of eating meat (cows) and climate change.
Continuing along that line of thought. Industrial animal agriculture has a greater climate change impact than all transportation, so yes, it is worth thinking about trying to do something about it. It is not a "tiny" part of the picture. It is greater that all transportation use of fossil fuels. (www.cowspiracy.com)
The easiest personal choice here is to just don't eat meat.
Your arguments that we "need" meat is just not supported by any evidence. B12 is synthesized by microorganisms and passes up the food chain in fish, meat and dairy. If you are a strict vegan, you may not get enough B12 from food but B12 supplementation is widespread. (Same for DHA)
It might be possible to mitigate some of the other sources of CO2 that you cite and I believe that government and individuals are starting to address them but they are less than industrial meat production.

 

[Chris TX]

...
Continuing along that line of thought. Industrial animal agriculture has a greater climate change impact than all transportation, so yes, it is worth thinking about trying to do something about it. It is not a "tiny" part of the picture. It is greater that all transportation use of fossil fuels. .. .

Yeah, transportation doesn't generally give off methane. If anything, CNG vehicles burn methane and emit CO2.

Wrong tree again.

 

[SageBrush]

but simply eating natural meat full of these building blocks would make more sense

Until you consider all the negative effects that naturally come along for the ride.

Your B12 argument should also be able to answer why all the non-meat eating animals in the world that are not endogenous producers of B12 are 'natural.' Perhaps deer are naturally supposed to eat human.